EX1 vs F3

K

krost-audiovisual

Well-known member
Hi all

just a quick test, what an f3 can do for you in low-light and how it compares to my EX1...
both right out of the camera, pp settings off, no color grading, set to 3200k, shutter off

lens used: nikon 50mm 1:1.8D (the lens i have closest to the 1.9 of the EX lens...)

just got mine 2 days ago...

what a beast!


http://www.vimeo.com/25882261
 
Strange but the EX1 stands up well according to your test.

The only thing I dislike about the F3 apart from the price is the form factor.
I'd prefer something at least the size of the EX3 which I have.
You have to spend so much just getting it to that size so you can hold it with a degree of comfort.
 
well,

well at 0db, but all other settings....look at the noise there!
the f3 is working in low light amazingly!

i was struggling with myself if i should buy it or not, but comparing all the options (red, fs-100, vdslr), it's simply the most perfect camera out there at the moment! and i think that sony will sooner or later adopt the new mount for their eng-style as well, so there'll be some perfect fitting lenses then....
what bugs me is the lack of the joystick, and the placement of the display which is in the way if you run'n'gun with manually focusing the lens, but that's more something i have to get used to...

the pictures are so beautiful out of this cam that to me it's worth the price....
 
Apologies....you dead right....I didn't do fullscreen and only had a quick look....very clean picture.....amazing low light performance.

I hope they bring out another with different form factor like they did EX1 >> EX3.
 
Considering that a ex1r is approximately $6100 new compared to a F3 at $14000 for just the body, I'd say that the ex1 held up extremely well. I agree that the F3 has better low light capabilities than an ex1 but then i'd expect that and more from a camera that cost more than twice as much.
 
The F3's jump in performance is more like the jump between a 7,000$ camera to a 60,000$+ camera. The fact that is only double is astounding.
 
They are really different cameras for different purposes. I have both and the EX1 with a zoom toggle and deeper field of view is much easier to use for ENG and live events, but difficult to separate your subject from the back ground by limiting the DOF.

The F3 is much easier to create almost a 3D type of effect by separating the subject from the background with DOF control. You may hunt a bit for focus during run and gun. The upcoming Sony lens may operate with a zoom toggle, but will be a much slower lens than the F1.9 of the EX1.

That being said you CAN use either for both, but it can be a bit of a struggle to work them out of their comfort zone. In many ways I like the F3 better even though its bigger. Lack of noise is one of them.
 
TimurCivan said:
The F3's jump in performance is more like the jump between a 7,000$ camera to a 60,000$+ camera. The fact that is only double is astounding.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd go that far. I mean that'd make it better than a Red and I haven't seen that yet. I agree it's a great camera but it's still 420 and 32 bit. Further, I've seen footage from a 5d Mark 2 that looks just good and it's only $3000. I agree with Duke, to compare the F3 to an EX1 is comparing apples to grapes. The EX1 is simply the best camera in it's field at it's price point, period. The F3 can make the same claim....but it's in a different field altogether and for now it's pretty much by it's self.
 
krost-audiovisual said:
lens used: nikon 50mm 1:1.8D (the lens i have closest to the 1.9 of the EX lens...)
Click to expand...

A stills camera f/1.8 lens is totally different to a camcorder zoom f/1.9. Remember the aperture numbers are relative to focal length, and as the still camera lens has a larger focal length for the same field of view, the aperture is actually much wider at the same f number, so it's letting much more light into the camera than the zoom lens is, that's the reason for the better low light performance. On the other hand, the camcorder lens has a huge zoom range, try a stills lens with a similar zoom range to the camcorder lens and see what happens to the F3's low light capability then.

Of course, the advantage of the F3 and similar cameras is the ability to swap lenses, which presumer camcorders can't do.
 
studio1972 said:
Or my £450 550D with £250 30mm 1.4 attached which has similar low light performance.
Click to expand...

The 550D (T2i) has about half the true resolution, and three times the moire, no ND filters, etc. They aren't a bad little camera (yes I have both), but not even in the same ball park even with the ML hack.
 
Philip Bloom has a nice, real life, comparison of the F3, FS100 and AF100 online.
http://vimeo.com/23294197

The one thing that struck me was that the FS100 was between the F3 and AF100 in the way it handled highlight roll off. And that the F3 just seemed a little "richer" image. But the images are very close. Its the ND filters, picture profiles and DC in that did it for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top