F35 in 20's vs modern cameras

[DM_R]

The F35 forum is the best i've ever seen. And F35's rendition is some kind of magic. I need a camera for my first fiction and F35 is no brainer in terms of color out of the box, global shutter, highlight roloff and noise pattern. Thinking to use it with the a7s3 as a b-cam for some cases where i need modern AF.

But. The past year was a very rich on novelties, so many modern cameras have been released. I know that F35 cannot be used on most of my works like interviews, documentaries, corporate vids... so trying to invest with a cold head but with the soul in the mind

I've owned few "all-arounders" like FS7 and FS5 but their images wasnt close to cinematic look. Sony's unfamous margenta, clipping in highlights.. Their weird line-skipped slow motion was a huge dissapointment for my needs too. It's no chance to test any camera in my country, so i've trusted specs and made lot of mistakes.

Today i'm thinking about the C300mk3 as "all arounder" for everything i do. But image from it also looks like from dslr on every youtube test i've seen. It has true 12.8 stops by imatest and nicely recovers image from +3/-3 stops. But where this huge DR has gone in real world shots?

So. For 10.2020 I'm thinking of F35+a7s3 vs C300mkiii. Wery interesting in opinion of F35 users and guys who sold them for a different reasons. Your expirience is very important for my desicion because F35 shold cost much more for me because of delivery to Ukraine and import taxes. So it's very risky if the unit with issues (dead pixels etc). Even returns would be acceptable, i'd pay for the taxes and delivery anyway. But I really love image from it because shot a lot on film with leitz m6, contax g2, hassel 500 and don't like cmos's way of rendering.

Waiting for opinions, advices, discussion)

 

[DIRECTORDEVIN]

The F35 forum is the best i've ever seen. And F35's rendition is some kind of magic. I need a camera for my first fiction and F35 is no brainer in terms of color out of the box, global shutter, highlight roloff and noise pattern. Thinking to use it with the a7s3 as a b-cam for some cases where i need modern AF.

But. The past year was a very rich on novelties, so many modern cameras have been released. I know that F35 cannot be used on most of my works like interviews, documentaries, corporate vids... so trying to invest with a cold head but with the soul in the mind

I've owned few "all-arounders" like FS7 and FS5 but their images wasnt close to cinematic look. Sony's unfamous margenta, clipping in highlights.. Their weird line-skipped slow motion was a huge dissapointment for my needs too. It's no chance to test any camera in my country, so i've trusted specs and made lot of mistakes.

Today i'm thinking about the C300mk3 as "all arounder" for everything i do. But image from it also looks like from dslr on every youtube test i've seen. It has true 12.8 stops by imatest and nicely recovers image from +3/-3 stops. But where this huge DR has gone in real world shots?

So. For 10.2020 I'm thinking of F35+a7s3 vs C300mkiii. Wery interesting in opinion of F35 users and guys who sold them for a different reasons. Your expirience is very important for my desicion because F35 shold cost much more for me because of delivery to Ukraine and import taxes. So it's very risky if the unit with issues (dead pixels etc). Even returns would be acceptable, i'd pay for the taxes and delivery anyway. But I really love image from it because shot a lot on film with leitz m6, contax g2, hassel 500 and don't like cmos's way of rendering.

Waiting for opinions, advices, discussion)

All I can say is that the f35 is a beautiful camera which you already know.

It’s big and bulky but this doesn’t have to be a downside, use the size of the camera to put you more in a spiritual es sense when shooting with it. The camera can really make you think as an artists, no more just putting cameras anywhere and hoping to stitch it together in post. It will make you think big and focus on your story.

Imagine just picking any shot you want, and never having to worry weather what you shot is gonna look great or if the sensor moired or if the shot looked big enough. All of these problems vanish with the f35 and all that’s left is your imagination. It’s why I purchased this camera and will never sell it. My wife shots look like classic Oil paintings on the f35. You will see soon enough when you try to match the other cameras with it that they don’t really stand a chance. Buy it, stay zen like and incorporate its bulky body into your creativity.

Cheers

 

[DM_R]

All I can say is that the f35 is a beautiful camera which you already know.

It’s big and bulky

Buy it, stay zen like and incorporate its bulky body into your creativity.
Cheers

Thank you for a reply and your expirience with a camera. Yesterday I've watched "Once upon a time in Anatolia" and all the questions disappeared... before...

... I've watched "behind the scenes" stuff with a huge amounts of different light, camera crew from at least of 5 persons (DP, puller, assistants) etc. Such a best movie, I've seen for a long time in terms of atmosphere, storytelling, acting and, of course, image. Nevertheless, director, Nuri Ceylan, chosed an F-65 for his next movie "Kis Uykusu" and said: “We made a comparison test before we started, and as soon as I saw the results I decided on the F65 as there was a huge difference with this camera. [It] is the first time I’ve seen something better than 35mm”.

Of course, it's not a reason to buy the F-65 tomorrow, but something interesting opinion from a person, who shot one of the best-looking movies on the F-35 cam. As for me, I'm not a huge fan of this noise in shadows, which everyone loves on this forum: for my eye it's not like a film grain. F-65 is much cleaner in shadows, but how it holds the highlights in comparison to the F-35? My project shouldn't have a lot of low-light stuff, just intersting for myself: Alexa: +6.8 stops, F35: +6.3, F65?

Would be pleasant to see your works, shot on F35, even personal (if you can show them, of course).
I'll go with the F35 just because of it's film-feeling (except noise) and nostalgic rendering for anyone who shot on film.
Some of my film photos from 2008-2010:

 

[RayZan]

From my experience with the F35, it needs a lot of light. It does not produce appealing images underexposed. And I agree with you, the noise pattern is not like film grain at all. But that is subjective. If you expose well though, you will not see any noise at all. I rate the camera at 250 ISO.

 

[DM_R]

interesting.. because i've read, that F35 holds well till 800 without significant noise
https://vimeo.com/336945104 - looks very nice even with the NR
Is it enough for a strong overcast, cloudy sky with no visible sun, from your expirience?

 

[RayZan]

interesting.. because i've read, that F35 holds well till 800 without significant noise
https://vimeo.com/336945104 - looks very nice even with the NR
Is it enough for a strong overcast, cloudy sky with no visible sun, from your expirience?

I wouldn't agree with that. This camera is light hungry. It was made when sets were typically lit with big Fresnels and not little LED panels. A cloudy sky is plenty of light normally. I think if you keep everything above 100 ire you'll have no noise. But once you go below that, things go downhill quickly.
Seach Rick Birnbaum's posts for some tests he made. Again in my view 100 to 128 ire is the magic number. You can't really go below that.

Man, this scene from Once Upon a Time in Anatolia says it all. Who would dare light a scene like this for digital? Yet the F35 rendered the images as close as any digital camera could ever come to film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeC8SweG_bQ

 

[Grug]

I'd push the F35 to 800 ISO on occasion (when I desperately needed the extra highlight latitude), but you were really riding the limit at 800.

In 2020, unless the global shutter was absolutely paramount to what you were shooting, I'd find it really hard to recommend the F35 over the C300iii. The Canon gives you better dynamic range, internal raw 4k recording, up to 120fps, internal NDs, and it's cleaner at 1600 ISO than the F35 is at 800. It's also super-light by comparison, and just much faster and simpler to work with overall.

It also seems just as easy to grade into a really nice space as the big Sony is.

The fact that Alexa classics (well, the high-hours ones at least) have also fallen in cost to be within grasp of people looking at an F35... I'd say you need some really specific reasons to opt for the big Sony these days.

You'd have to really twist my arm to get me to shoot on the F35 today if the alternative was the C300iii. Because doing so would be making my job notably harder by comparison. Assuming the pictures are equally as pleasant to look at, then I'm always going to prefer the camera that gets out of my way more.

 

[niki]

Thank you for a reply and your expirience with a camera. Yesterday I've watched "Once upon a time in Anatolia" and all the questions disappeared... before...

... I've watched "behind the scenes" stuff with a huge amounts of different light, camera crew from at least of 5 persons (DP, puller, assistants) etc. Such a best movie, I've seen for a long time in terms of atmosphere, storytelling, acting and, of course, image. Nevertheless, director, Nuri Ceylan, chosed an F-65 for his next movie "Kis Uykusu" and said: “We made a comparison test before we started, and as soon as I saw the results I decided on the F65 as there was a huge difference with this camera. [It] is the first time I’ve seen something better than 35mm”.

Of course, it's not a reason to buy the F-65 tomorrow, but something interesting opinion from a person, who shot one of the best-looking movies on the F-35 cam. As for me, I'm not a huge fan of this noise in shadows, which everyone loves on this forum: for my eye it's not like a film grain. F-65 is much cleaner in shadows, but how it holds the highlights in comparison to the F-35? My project shouldn't have a lot of low-light stuff, just intersting for myself: Alexa: +6.8 stops, F35: +6.3, F65?

Would be pleasant to see your works, shot on F35, even personal (if you can show them, of course).
I'll go with the F35 just because of it's film-feeling (except noise) and nostalgic rendering for anyone who shot on film.
Some of my film photos from 2008-2010:

from what you're going for and from my experience find a super 16mm film camera use (kodak b&w) for unforgetable art and cinema

 

[RayZan]

No doubt. But super 16 cameras are getting more and more expensive now. Plus film, processing and scanning.
The biggest irony: With all the hoopla surrounding all the new 6K, 8K, 12K digital cameras, many have concluded that cmos digital is just a dead-end aesthetically (though not commercially), no matter what the resolution is and the prices of 16 and s16mm cameras continue to rise. For good reason.

 

[DM_R]

Thank to all for your time and helpful advices.

Man, this scene from Once Upon a Time in Anatolia says it all. Who would dare light a scene like this for digital? Yet the F35 rendered the images as close as any digital camera could ever come to film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeC8SweG_bQ

Yes, this scene is unforgettable and I watched it with a open mouth, but there was no magic, just enough of light:

Same for the night shots:

I'd push the F35 to 800 ISO on occasion (when I desperately needed the extra highlight latitude), but you were really riding the limit at 800.

Yep, saw this solution from your and Macgregor's old posts.

In 2020, unless the global shutter was absolutely paramount to what you were shooting, I'd find it really hard to recommend the F35 over the C300iii. The Canon gives you better dynamic range, internal raw 4k recording, up to 120fps, internal NDs, and it's cleaner at 1600 ISO than the F35 is at 800. It's also super-light by comparison, and just much faster and simpler to work with overall.
It also seems just as easy to grade into a really nice space as the big Sony is.

The global shutter (or mechanical like alexa's 2ms), highlight roloff, reach color space and minimal amount of aliasing/moire are the most important camera functions for shooting auteur cinema, in my opinion. My movie will mainly consist of hard daylight scenes, fast camera movenings will be also present. I agree, that C300iii is a dream camera in terms of specs, but to be honest... I was fooled several times by Canon and Sony and don't believe in their marketing numbers without real-world tests. I haven't seen ANY beautiful footage from C300iii yet. In this test you can see it vs Alexa 2K, Weapon and C200. Grading is poore, but you can download original files and see that arri has much vider halftones and color palette.

The fact that Alexa classics (well, the high-hours ones at least) have also fallen in cost to be within grasp of people looking at an F35... I'd say you need some really specific reasons to opt for the big Sony these days.

Yep, I cannot imagine it out of crew and staged production. So looking to add Sony a7s3 in my kit which have most of modern C300's features (same DR, 120 fps, lowlight, AF).

You'd have to really twist my arm to get me to shoot on the F35 today if the alternative was the C300iii. Because doing so would be making my job notably harder by comparison. Assuming the pictures are equally as pleasant to look at, then I'm always going to prefer the camera that gets out of my way more.

Agree with everything, but need to see even the one great filmic footage from the C300. All i've seen was too dslr'ish and with the very weak roll off before clipping.

from what you're going for and from my experience find a super 16mm film camera use (kodak b&w) for unforgetable art and cinema

I think, it's impossible for me now: too many troubles with film in any aspect of process. At least, not for my first serious projects.

 

[Ben_Ericson]

Agree with everything, but need to see even the one great filmic footage from the C300. All i've seen was too dslr'ish and with the very weak roll off before clipping.
.

I'm not sure if you mean all the C300's but I always found the Mk2 to have a beautiful image that was soft in the highlights and very pleasent overall. The Mk3 image to me looks a lot more like a DSLR with harder clipping highlights and less pleasing color.

Again, haven't tested it side by side but I have watched almost all the videos I can find online. Some of the magic from the Mk2 seems to be lost. I hope I am wrong because I was actually very interested in that camera.

 

[Grug]

The global shutter (or mechanical like alexa's 2ms), highlight roloff, reach color space and minimal amount of aliasing/moire are the most important camera functions for shooting auteur cinema, in my opinion. My movie will mainly consist of hard daylight scenes, fast camera movenings will be also present. I agree, that C300iii is a dream camera in terms of specs, but to be honest... I was fooled several times by Canon and Sony and don't believe in their marketing numbers without real-world tests. I haven't seen ANY beautiful footage from C300iii yet. In this test you can see it vs Alexa 2K, Weapon and C200. Grading is poore, but you can download original files and see that arri has much vider halftones and color palette.

Just be aware that the noise/texture of the F35 (even at 400 ISO, which is where I normally rated it), with not match well with any of the more modern cameras, unless you add noise/grain to them in post.

It's quite a distinct part of the F35's look.

Yep, I cannot imagine it out of crew and staged production. So looking to add Sony a7s3 in my kit which have most of modern C300's features (same DR, 120 fps, lowlight, AF).

The rigging required to get the A7Siii functional as a production camera, will make it even messier than the F35. So be careful what you wish for there.

A nice thing about the C300iii/C500ii is that you can simply add a Bright Tangerine cage, and you're rigging all becomes very simple and standardised.

Agree with everything, but need to see even the one great filmic footage from the C300. All i've seen was too dslr'ish and with the very weak roll off before clipping.


I think, it's impossible for me now: too many troubles with film in any aspect of process. At least, not for my first serious projects.

Have a look at "Flint Town" on Netflix, it's a doco series that they shot on the C300ii and it looks fantastic. That show put to rest any concerns I had about the images from Canon cameras - if you light it well, and your colour grading is en pointe, you'll have no issues with image quality.

And I'd expect the C300iii to only be better.

 

[drboffa]

Just be aware that the noise/texture of the F35 (even at 400 ISO, which is where I normally rated it), with not match well with any of the more modern cameras, unless you add noise/grain to them in post.

It's quite a distinct part of the F35's look.

Not to hijack this, but do you know of good examples—either large screenshots or videos not destroyed by YouTube compression—that illustrate this noise texture, or compare it to other cameras?

I ask just out of curiosity (and appreciation for the F35).

 

[DM_R]

Just be aware that the noise/texture of the F35 (even at 400 ISO, which is where I normally rated it), with not match well with any of the more modern cameras, unless you add noise/grain to them in post.

It's quite a distinct part of the F35's look.

My plot is about adventures of three friends, from childhood to youth. The first part is from beginning of 1990's (late USSR) and I think that F35's look will be perfect for giving a nostalgic charm. I don't like big amounts of noise/grain, so it would be some reducing in post with the simultaneously adding to a7siii footage. I think that 99,99% of scenes I'll shot with the main camera. I need a7siii/c300iii/r5 only for some shots I've never seen before and the modern AF will help me a lot. All the shots from a b-cam should be very dynamical with the fast editing so i think not many viewers could recognise the difference.

The rigging required to get the A7Siii functional as a production camera, will make it even messier than the F35. So be careful what you wish for there.

I shouldn't put a7siii on rig - this is a gimbal solution for a some dynamic scenes and underwater shots (housing will be much cheaper than for cine bodies)

A nice thing about the C300iii/C500ii is that you can simply add a Bright Tangerine cage, and you're rigging all becomes very simple and standardised.

Agree, the formfactor and specs of C300iii - the best I've seen, but as I said there no any good footage from it. Very strange because camera have been shipped 3 months ago. Even the Komodo looks better with it's global shutter and really nice image rendering with better handling of highlights. But it's ergonomics - one of weirdest things on the market: too small for a cinema camera, too powerful for being allarounder, needs tons of accesoires to being a real beast, no separate recording as well.

Have a look at "Flint Town" on Netflix, it's a doco series that they shot on the C300ii and it looks fantastic. That show put to rest any concerns I had about the images from Canon cameras - if you light it well, and your colour grading is en pointe, you'll have no issues with image quality.
And I'd expect the C300iii to only be better.

Thanks, very nice looking for a documentary, but the almost every shot is night or cloudy day. I plan to start filming at spring, so have amount of time for a research. For today I'm going with an F35+a7siii.


I think that the best solution is Amira/XT but both are not afordable for me now. Renting of mini is also not the better solution imo.

 

[Sttratos]

I'd push the F35 to 800 ISO on occasion (when I desperately needed the extra highlight latitude), but you were really riding the limit at 800.

In 2020, unless the global shutter was absolutely paramount to what you were shooting, I'd find it really hard to recommend the F35 over the C300iii. The Canon gives you better dynamic range, internal raw 4k recording, up to 120fps, internal NDs, and it's cleaner at 1600 ISO than the F35 is at 800. It's also super-light by comparison, and just much faster and simpler to work with overall.

It also seems just as easy to grade into a really nice space as the big Sony is.

The fact that Alexa classics (well, the high-hours ones at least) have also fallen in cost to be within grasp of people looking at an F35... I'd say you need some really specific reasons to opt for the big Sony these days.

You'd have to really twist my arm to get me to shoot on the F35 today if the alternative was the C300iii. Because doing so would be making my job notably harder by comparison. Assuming the pictures are equally as pleasant to look at, then I'm always going to prefer the camera that gets out of my way more.

I know what you mean and on paper it should really be like that. But when I look at the images I just don't see it. Maybe I should just let go from the "film look" and embrace the digital look. But the C300, all of them look like video to me or DSLR. I've been looking for something to replace my Alexa and honestly can't find anything. I really wanted to love the Ursa 12K but after trying really hard, I just can't. The Canons leave me cold too and the Venice is just somehow off.

So to me at least for drama and if you have at least a minimal budget to light, Alexa and F35 are still king in 2020.

 

[DM_R]

Sttratos
Agreed with everything. That's why I've started this thread: wanna love some of 2020 cams, but cannot. And need help from experienced men. Grug's point of view also helpful. If i could take a C300iii for a test in my city and if it's DR, color range and hl rolloff could impress me, that'll be no brainer and bargain for every type of my jobs.

I'm planning to buy the ninelite 500 with couple of 300D's and rent the rest at the gaffers request when the project starts.

 

[RayZan]

Personally I feel very distressed about the state we're in, despite everyone saying "this is a great time for filmmakers". It's becoming more evident now that cmos is a dead end for dramatic aesthetics. New models bring more resolution and higher sensitivity. But human skin still looks like plastic and shadows are a big blob of undifferentiated gray. It all looks like a water color drawing, pleasant but with no emotional weight. I've watched hundreds of films over the years that moved me to tears, I don't think that one of them was shot on digital.
Now commercially, it might be a different matter.

 

[Grug]

Not to hijack this, but do you know of good examples—either large screenshots or videos not destroyed by YouTube compression—that illustrate this noise texture, or compare it to other cameras?

I ask just out of curiosity (and appreciation for the F35).

These aren't from the final grade (I've stripped them back to just some luminance/saturation curves for the sake of comparison), but it's the best A/B I could find.

This is the F35 (mid-shot) and the F3 (close-up). It's not easy to see thanks to the difference in frame sizing, but if you look to the mid-tones you'll see the difference in texture (and how much smoother the newer F3 looks by comparison):

The F35 is by no means objectionable (I certainly prefer the look it gets to the F3) but there's some "life" in the midtones that you won't see on a properly exposed image from a newer camera.

 

[Guest]

personally i feel very distressed about the state we're in, despite everyone saying "this is a great time for filmmakers". It's becoming more evident now that cmos is a dead end for dramatic aesthetics. New models bring more resolution and higher sensitivity. But human skin still looks like plastic and shadows are a big blob of undifferentiated gray. It all looks like a water color drawing, pleasant but with no emotional weight. I've watched hundreds of films over the years that moved me to tears, i don't think that one of them was shot on digital.
Now commercially, it might be a different matter.

amen!!!


I'll add, if you talk to engineers and manufacturers in any field, you quickly realize why so few cameras do what photographers want. F35 and Alexa are perhaps the only video cameras in the world that were completely catered to the taste of cinematographers. Neither camera is perfect. Alexa skin can look a little clay like (but thank god no plastic-y like most everything else) and the F35 is not as sensitive nor have the DR that cameras do today. But what they did get right, was they made images that were designed to look good.... not designed to sell well on BH.

 

[Guest]

These aren't from the final grade (I've stripped them back to just some luminance/saturation curves for the sake of comparison), but it's the best A/B I could find.

This is the F35 (mid-shot) and the F3 (close-up). It's not easy to see thanks to the difference in frame sizing, but if you look to the mid-tones you'll see the difference in texture (and how much smoother the newer F3 looks by comparison):

I signed in and just saw the close up first, and I kind of cringed thinking maybe I was wrong about the F35. So glad that shot turned out to be the F3.

That said, your lighting and comp is great. It was just the way the camera rendered skin. Didn't look like F35... because it wasn't, phew!

After using the F35, I really haven't found a camera that makes shooting quite so straight forward. It is really all that shooters want.


(gotta admit, the F3 in your hands holds up with some of the best cameras out there though. You do amazing things brother!)