Deprecitation, Selling EX1 ? Buy F3 ,FS100

My .2 bits on the topic... I believe you would be overshooting your needs by a lot if going for the F3. The investment you'll have to make might not be worth it if you're not using any of the functions the F3 is intended. I see the AF100 being a perfect camera for you, its a step up for sure, but wont hurt your wallet, and still keeps everything you need.

Unless you are doing heavy cinematic work, there is no reason to buy an F3, there are many more options out there now for 35mm like depth, FS100 another contender as well. I see you much more suited for either the AF100 or the FS100

The F3 is an amazingly deep camera, deep to the point where you'd expect to pay more for it. But if you're not going to dive in, theres just no reason, save your wallet some hurting. The investment is much more than just a camera with the F3, then theres lenses, (adapters if needed), rails, follow focus, external monitor/EVF, the list goes on. You'll be in the 20k range before you know it. The FS100 and AF100's you can get all of those goodies and you'll still be within a reasonable mark.
 
Well I have and like these nikkor lenses.. 10.5 fishG 14.28 , (need 17-55G), 20, 24, 20-35, 50, 55 macro, 85/2, 135/2, 70-200G, 400/2.8 - so I wont be getting any lenses -

For corp/eng the lens set only makes sense with a camera that goes with nikkor G mount - the zooms

As I said that lens group doesnt really work with the AF100 - because there is no corp/eng solution zoom lens that I can see that isnt too wide or too slow

I have a fully pimped riggage.. Follow Focus Rails, 2 small HD monitors, HoFo, you name it.. all to fly cameras that cant even shoot a brick wall

As for the cost - it is my theory - the one that I am testing - that over three years..

A few extra gigs, a few extra rentals minus Depreciation on F3

May actually be a lower cost than

Cost of Fs100 minus depreciation

----

I made the same choice with my mercedes van - a nearly new van would depreciate by $8k over four years, while an old wonker would depreciate the same amount or more, while cost more to service, looking lobudget etc, making the more expensive van actually have the same annual cost and many benefits over the old one

Not to mention the pleasure of the drive for the duration - which is true of the camera too

The cost is therefore irrelevant, its the annual cost that counts

And of course I would 'dive in' to getting the best image but its not like I can say I have clients that need more than XDcam 1080

Not to mention Recording media and batts, which I have from the EX1 which may save a grand..

and the FS100 doesnt even work in daylight without a MB and swappable NDs - which interferes with fast CorpENg work in a nearly unnaceptable manner

S
 
Last edited:
same boat here....
i own an ex1 and would NEVER sell it for either camera - just because it's my workhorse and makes wonderful images. i own a d7000 which makes wonderful pics, but handling isn't too great (though i own a cage, FF, Matte box etc...)
so what to go for next? the price difference is quite huge, but so is the feature-set... BUT... only if you plan to do Hiquality Work where you need the extra latitude of the F3. Slog is no Option for this CAmera, it's a must.
well, someday Epic-S will be out. even if it still is a year to go it will be a great camera. greater than the F3? No in my opinion. For many reasons. But the Evolution/PriceDrops will not come to a halt just because RED or SONY or PANA decided to say so. in 3 years we will have cameras that are unimaginable right now at a price point half of what they are right now. Maybe even a Startup will bring something new to the game - who knows. Think back 3 years! NO VDSLRs at all!
But the question is: why not get an FS-100, slap in a low contrast filter to get a little more out of the sensor and sell it when you get the next BIG job where you REALLY NEED the 4:4:4 of the F3 and you can invest part of your salary. This plus the money from the FS-100 being sold then.
So far this is the best option for me. I don't think that i can get better jobs just because of a camera. it's my work that should do that, not the equipment. i'd love to have an F3, but hey, i can rent it for little at any time. and the FS-100 is still some months away.............
 
I enjoy everyones responses

I guess Ill have to figure it out for myself !

Everyone is bigging up the 'top level' facilities of the F3

Really all I want is a cam with EX1 File Quality that does not..

Cut out mid take if you wobble a wire - losing footage
Overheat and cut out - losing footage
Go mental when it films a wall - loosing footage
Not need an MB and filter set to make it function in normal daylight

(none of these things are aspriations towards being an ASC, just not a fool in front of clients who are doing better with thier IPhone)

And does..
work with nikkor g lenses (any other suggestions for a 16/17-50-60?)
Roll for more than 12 mins

My thought is that once one has resolved the Fs100 issues aruond the need for ND, bought a better regarded camera that holds its value, bought more new media (cards) etc etc that the F3 in base form may be only marginally more expensive to own than the FS100

Im going to do the maths

S
 
Well heres a thing..
assume the FS 100 depreciates by 30% PA and you cane 4 ND filters and have to buy a new MB

and

The F3 Depreciates by 15% PA and requires no ND filters

Then the monthly ownership cost over four years is 20.80UKP more for the F3 than the FS 100 - which is a no brainer in anyones book in favour of the F3

Of course change the depreciation values a bit and the maths totally changes ..

Fs 100 F3

Value at end of year one £ 3,515.40 £ 8,500.00
Value at end of year two £ 2,460.78 £ 7,225.00
Value at end of year three £ 1,722.55 £ 6,141.25
Value at end of year four £ 1,205.78 £ 5,220.06

Cost of ownership over four £ 3,816.22 £ 4,779.94
Per year £ 954.05 £ 1,194.98
per month £ 79.50 £ 99.58

Mothly Difference £ 20.08

-Before you consider cost the of media (if you are own EX1 media)

- Lets say the FS breaks down once and you hit a rental bill for a fornight you defo have saved by buying the F3
 
Last edited:
I think you are looking at it wrong. Any good to great camera holds its value because there is a demand for it. But that isn't why you buy a camera. If that's your criteria buy a certificate of deposit or a bond instead.
 
Well I have run a business in a related industry (still photos) for 14+ years, we have had a lot of similar head scratching (going digital with two staff in 2001 cost me $30K)

Buying a digital Hasselblad in 2005 was $20k and heaped me in a lot of work because I could do proper print quality with digital turnaround times - while other photographers were sitting on fora saying 'digital will never be as good as film'

Ive also made duff descisions buying stoopid kit that didnt get a ROI and also some mid hitters like my 400 2.8 which may have broken even after 6 years

Dont get me wrong - I would be excited by the camera too - that makes a big difference

A back pocket full of ND filters and sand does not excite me - I want to be slick when I'm on show

And of course bonds have not performed not too well recently !

S
 
morgan_moore said:
assume ...
Click to expand...

Seems a little silly to do precise math on such arbitrary assumptions, it doesn't really tell us anything, only misleads us. You can't really think an FS100 will be worth 25% of its original value in 4 years when my EX1 is 60% of its value after 3 years and HVXs are still worth about 33% of their value after more than 5 years despite being tied to out of date, expensive media.

It may also be worth considering the added cost of insuring an F3 which costs 2.6x as much as an FS100.

As for the ND filter thing, I understand that for some people it is a big deal, and I certainly would find an internal wheel convenient, but with an ND fader that fits in my pocket, it really isnt that hard to screw it on and off when going between interior and exterior locations, and it gives the added flexibility of being able to precisely dial in exposure to get exactly whatever fstop and shutter I happen to want. Most of the time shooting available light exteriors with internal ND in 3stop increments, I have to compromise on gain and aperture by 1.5 stops on average which is still a bit of a pain.
 
I will agree that the lack of ND filters was my only real bummer, and I also find the F3 having only 2 ND settings (other than 0) less appealing than the AF100 and its 3 ND settings that you can use. Of course, the F3 and FS100 are so clean you do have a lot more freedom to pull from the shadows it appears (no personal experience yet).

That said, I don't think there is any precedence set that the FS100 is going to drop 30% whereas the F3 will drop 15%. Just as you can say something better will come along for the FS100, like an FS200, the same is true for the F3. The F4 could go above and beyond the F3 and have things like SLog from the get go with the same price as now. The Epic-S could come out at a very competitive price and make is extremely desirable. There could be a Canon camera hit the market within 3 years (which is likely) that has some great features. What if in three years SLog becomes standard on the F3 and not $3k anymore to purchase? As you are doing, it's all a guessing game.

With regards to mounts, both the AF100 and FS100 have no problem mounting with non-electronic connections at this time:

Nikon G to m4/3 (dumb mount)

http://www.dhgate.com/mount-adapter-nikon-g-m4-3/r-ff8080812af9c6b7012afaa690e71f05.html

Nikon G to E mount (dumb mount)

http://www.amazon.com/Kipon-Nikon-Mount-mount-Adapter/dp/B004TI06L2

Both the AF100 and FS100 is waiting for at least the Birger mounts to attach EOS lenses and then Nikon lenses (per their words) some time after that. You'll have this same problem with all three cameras at the moment. Sony does have electronic zoom lenses coming for the F3, but I am not sure when that is. Also, I bet the cost is going to be pretty substantial.

I basically look at it this way. With the AF100, FS100 and F3 when I look at what I am going to do with them, I put them on a level playing field. I'd assume all of them could depreciate the same amount as a basis. Therefore, at the end of 3 years, clearly the F3 would cause the most money to be lost. HOWEVER, people typically charge for their services with the camera used as part of the calculation. So if your rates can be higher for the F3 than the FS100 and AF100, then that difference in depreciation might not even matter if the extra margin pays for itself.

And given the zoom capable PL lenses coming, it is an unknown, how long does it take to zoom, how well does focus work. It's still an S35 sensor and focus speed due to the massive DoF difference of the sensor size could still be an issue. For ENG type work, I still think cameras with smaller sensors are going to perform better by having deeper focus.

I can't justify a $7k difference for ND filters given I would not use the extra features of the F3 (and I LOVE the image from the F3). Given I have NO clue what is happening in 3 years, that's what I have to look at. That extra $7k if I had it would go to things like lenses, external recorder, etc.

I plan on using a square filter mount on all the fronts of my lenses and use a drop in ND. I do not use a matte box. I am trying to work with a filter company on an ND design I've come up with, but so far, I've heard nothing back yet.

And of course, you are right, only you can mitigate the risks and make the determinations.
 
I also forgot to add, the FS100 should start shipping end of May. I've heard this from multiple sources now. Given that is only half a month away, sounds like a good idea to wait and see what the final FS100 looks like. No one has reported seeing a production model, everything has been preproduction. It could perform better, it could perform worse :)
 
Rick Burnett said:
For ENG type work, I still think cameras with smaller sensors are going to perform better by having deeper focus.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all points except this, if you want the performance of a small sensor camera with deeper DOF and more noise, just stop down and gain up on your F3/FS100. Theoretically at least this should be the case. Now the argument for small sensors due to the mechanics and ergonomics of ENG or fixed lenses vs still/cine 35mm lenses is certainly an important factor for anyone doing ENG. There still arent really any ENG 35mm lenses. Then again there are plenty of problems with most ENG and fixed lenses, they provide a very good experience in terms of ergonomics and ease of use for the operator, but usually at the cost of image quality. Small sensor ENG and fixed lenses are probably more likely to have issues with breathing, CA, aperture ramping, backfocus, etc. but it sure is nice to have a 14x or 20x lens that is easy to use and focus, works seamlessly with the camera and doesn't weigh a ton.
 
Last edited:
nyvz said:
Seems a little silly to do precise math on such arbitrary assumptions, i.
Click to expand...

You will note I used the word assume and also qualified the variance

I though it was interesting that with that assumption the costs are very similar

Posting a thread .. and getting info and input and opinion from makes the assumptions less aribtary

If i knew I would not be posting .. I be buying futures in he camera market

Surely some of you people have tales from the past of making such choices.. probably with cameras that cost nearly 10X the cost of the F3 which, by 2007 standards, is incredibly cheap.

The basis of my assumption is that 1080 good connectivity high MBS will still be relevant in four years - as relevant as the EX1 is today

And that the FS100 could drop due to supercedence .. whats a 7d worth in a market where one can buy a T3i new for 1/2 what my 7d cost a year ago

Of course Hitachi could release a Vistavision 6k raw shooter tommorrow for $10, but Im assuming that wont happen :)
 
Rick Burnett said:
That said, I don't think there is any precedence set that the FS100 is going to drop 30% whereas the F3 will drop 15%.
Click to expand...

There certainly are precedents of holding value..

You get to a point (like with my nikon D3) where you are not really bothered about upgrading.. cameras of this nature hold thier value - like the EX1 too - which is really great at its job

Such cameras are often in the price class of business tool not jewelery

And bean counters only upgrade with good reason

You have precedence of fast deflation .. bascialy every consumer device ever laptop video camera whatever

There is also precedence of uber deflation at the very top end..

Often stuff that cost nearly millions ends up in skips. apart from two nikon D1 cameras Ive managed to avoid buying any $20k doorstops so far

-------

It is true that one can get a very very pretty matte box for a lot less than $7k of course
 
nyvz said:
Agreed on all points except this, if you want the performance of a small sensor camera with deeper DOF and more noise, just stop down and gain up on your F3/FS100. Theoretically at least this should be the case. Now the argument for small sensors due to the mechanics and ergonomics of ENG or fixed lenses vs still/cine 35mm lenses is certainly an important factor for anyone doing ENG. There still arent really any ENG 35mm lenses. Then again there are plenty of problems with most ENG and fixed lenses, they provide a very good experience in terms of ergonomics and ease of use for the operator, but usually at the cost of image quality. Small sensor ENG and fixed lenses are probably more likely to have issues with breathing, CA, aperture ramping, backfocus, etc. but it sure is nice to have a 14x or 20x lens that is easy to use and focus, works seamlessly with the camera and doesn't weigh a ton.
Click to expand...

That is true, good point. The question becomes, if you stop down the F3 for deep focus compared to the deep focus of say the EX1, where is the inflection point where the smaller sensor is going to be less noisy? And you brought up a point I didn't, lens size. A lot of variables. I've yet to see where S35 and ENG come together. Not to say it wont soon.
 
morgan_moore said:
There certainly are precedents of holding value..

You get to a point (like with my nikon D3) where you are not really bothered about upgrading.. cameras of this nature hold thier value - like the EX1 too - which is really great at its job

Such cameras are often in the price class of business tool not jewelery

And bean counters only upgrade with good reason

You have precedence of fast deflation .. bascialy every consumer device ever laptop video camera whatever

There is also precedence of uber deflation at the very top end..

Often stuff that cost nearly millions ends up in skips. apart from two nikon D1 cameras Ive managed to avoid buying any $20k doorstops so far

-------

It is true that one can get a very very pretty matte box for a lot less than $7k of course
Click to expand...

But you are incorrect about the 7D. I told you, I have one and I can sell it now for about $100 less than what I purchased it for brand new when it was released. Just because the t2i exists at a cheap price doesn't make it devalue the 7D because the 7D is designed for two purposes, and it's major purpose, still photography, is what the cost difference is about. Video is an afterthought on the 7D. You are not comparing apples to apples on this. Go to eBay and search on completed auctions for the 7D both body and lens kit versions and I think you'll be surprised by how much they go for. And even knowing this, I still don't get rid of my 7D because I like the camera.

The FS100 and F3 are designed for video, period. What will predicate their depreciation is how well they deliver on what they are intended to do. I expect them both to depreciate, but looking at all video cameras over the last 3 years, I don't see any precedence that shows such a disparity of depreciation. But for me, none of that matters. I think the internal codec of the FS100 is better than the internal codec of the F3 personally, and I would not be buying the SLog or using PL mount lenses, so for me, the cost difference based on gain difference is two things, ND filters and SDI. I HATE HDMI with a passion, but not $7k hate :) And luckily it does not have the stupid small HDMI port. I plan on building an attachable bar to hold the HDMI in and reduce all strain from the port. (Given all the mounting holes on the FS100, this will be easy).
 
You are constructing an intelligent argument

I dont know the exacts of the 7d .. im sure you are correct

But I guess mine would not be worth sh*t now - maybe im wrong - it has a crack in the 'strong' magnesium body so its basically junked for the hobby market

As for the codec, Ill mug up on that - the last thing I want is to be using a deck of some nature over a pisspoor connection, so the codec needs to be standalone OK

You are right about the non mini HDMi - if it passes the 'pull while rolling' test ,id live with it

7k for a decent lead and an ND is indeed steep, a coolio Mbox could work (I hate em)

there are times (and im an expert on stills camera .. but dont have a deep knolege of vid history) that the prosumer one leads

I could never get the point of buying a (4mp) D1x for $5k when you could get a 6mp D100 for $1k, (unless you shot sports)

Its difficult - there are other times when it is better to just shut up and pay

(my Tascam D100 was just toilet - my sound devices 702 is pure love - should have just bought it in the first place)

(i also had 3 **** 80-200s, used nikkors and one stigma - before ponying up for a proper new G one - again wasted money - should have got the right tool first time)

and others where getting a pro label is just dumb

thats the hard thing to evaluate, and the info will come out in time

I have offline reports that the FS may not be not that nice actually to use - but who knows - I guess that will come out in time

I also like the short form of the cam, its a Pilot possible, and thanks to this thread I know that I am good to go with a Dumb Nikkor G mount,

So thanks for the input folks !

SMM
 
Last edited:
Im not how long the F3 and F100 is going to hold personally. I was exited offcourse but after a second thinking im hesitant to investigate my 20k$ . If Red could finally react and propose a scarlet and epic S , they will have the advantage on the high frame rate , resolution and a better modular design, then well Canon has surely great cards to play too (nikon too). Now if you have a bussiness and are confident you could make 100k$ with work in a 6months time by getting access to F3, well i guess it's make sense in your situation.

__________________________________________________________
Vincent Thomas
Artist for Film / Photograph & Creative Director
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/
__________________________________________________________
 
No problem! Given the FS100 is not out yet, there are a lot of unknowns. Between the AF100 and F3, they are out, and there is a lot of information on both. Ergonomically I am not a fan of the AF100 or F3, but, I am also not a traditional shooter. So my opinions on this are NOT shared by the majority of people I feel. I do feel a lot like Philip Bloom about all three cameras, they work a lot better with a separate support system, and so I put them on the same field in that regard. The FS100 is the smallest and lightest, and for my equipment I used with the 7D, that is important. But, that is neither he nor there really.

Might I also make a suggestion, wait till the FS100 is released and rent an F3 and an FS100 (and an AF100 even at that) and get some hands on. Everyone's needs are probably different and getting your hands on the cameras even for a day might really help you solidify what you like. I can read or watch all the material in the world, but nothing replaces me having the camera and using it with my equipment and seeing how it handles, what it does.

When you look deeper in these cameras, there are a lot of other things to consider as well. Things in the firmware, and those might be equally important to you. It's such a complicated question because there are so many variables.

In any case, good luck with your decision! :) Definitely let us know what you decide and then what your feelings are after you've used whichever you get.
 
So this morning I posted about why I wouldn't sell my EX1... and as of this afternoon, I'm about to sell my EX1, as I managed to nab an EX3 off of craigslist at a very good price that'll keep my cost to switch at 1k to 2k, and with a couple extra batteries and a new camera bag to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top