F55: F5 VS F55 VS F65 - what should i get?

anatusa

anatusa

Veteran
Hello

looking to make a big move, and leave my c300, and jump into the Sony world.

i film often in non controlled environment and film with available lighting, so the low light sensitivity is important to me. i wonder if anyone of u F5/55 users had an experience with C300? if so i wonder would u tell F5/55 is better in Low Light? plz share your experience!

as i understood from some posts here and there ..... the F5 is better in low light is it so? or the difference is very minimal?

f5/55 are preaty compact, what i love of course!

but in general would u consider f55 a smart buy now, do u believe in a longer future of F5/55 cams? or sony may reliese an updated cam soon after NAB?

1 more question, i noticed that a used F65 is even cheaper what f55 body coast now, its a little bulkier then f55, but real mechanical shatter and as i read its a true low light killer. if anyone of u had experience with it, plz share your thoughts as well! how much better its performance in real world compared to F55


Regards
 
anatusa said:
Hello

looking to make a big move, and leave my c300, and jump into the Sony world.

i film often in non controlled environment and film with available lighting, so the low light sensitivity is important to me. i wonder if anyone of u F5/55 users had an experience with C300? if so i wonder would u tell F5/55 is better in Low Light? plz share your experience!

as i understood from some posts here and there ..... the F5 is better in low light is it so? or the difference is very minimal?

f5/55 are preaty compact, what i love of course!

but in general would u consider f55 a smart buy now, do u believe in a longer future of F5/55 cams? or sony may reliese an updated cam soon after NAB?

1 more question, i noticed that a used F65 is even cheaper what f55 body coast now, its a little bulkier then f55, but real mechanical shatter and as i read its a true low light killer. if anyone of u had experience with it, plz share your thoughts as well! how much better its performance in real world compared to F55


Regards
Click to expand...

I've used the F5 and FS7, and the way the market is going and if you can wait until NAB then I would do so. Do you need a cam now? What is your budget? Will you be making your ROI with this? How long before you do so? Just some things to consider.

Rumors has it that Canon and other companies have a new lineup of cameras. It depends if you have to shoot something before April.
 
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/huge-4k-ca...vs-scarlet-vs-canon-c500-vs-1dc-vs-jvc-hmq10/

Pretty extensive camera test. To me, the F65 and the F55 look really, really close. I was quite surprised by how poor the Canon cameras looked compared to the Sonys and the REDs (and this is before S-Log 3 which I like quite a bit better). Maybe just the C series showing their age?

As for waiting for Canon, they have history of being very anti-climatic. People waited ages for the 5D3 and like the new C100 Mark II, a pretty big let down. But who knows.
 
anatusa said:
about pany After af100 i am kind of scared of them..
Click to expand...

Watching (you will have to find them) the varicam reel and also the abel vid on the varicam it is no AF100

Varicam has many things that the Sonys miss.. basically the Varicam is a fs7/5/55 want list in one camera!

Sound and Slomo
LUT to 1080 with 4k to log
No sony menu!

It looks v nice.

--

As for 5-vs 55 - I dont know them enough - but Id grab global shutter :)
 
What sort of shooting do you normally do? Do you shoot with assistants or operate and pull focus by yourself?

To give you some perspective, I'm an F5 owner who came VERY close to moving to one of these super-cheap used F65s a week ago, but decided against it in the end. I shoot primarily indie narrative at the moment with some commercial work on the side, so generally have a first and second AC with me to wrangle the camera, slate and data. But even so, as much as I wanted the incredible image-quality of the F65, I felt that those on-set conditions weren't quite enough to smoothly support the size of the F65 on the shoots I'm working on. The size of the camera and the amount of data it churns through are simply a bit too unwieldy for the size of shoots I'm generally working on, and the experience levels of the 2nd ACs and data wranglers I generally get on my camera teams.

It's a BIG plus about the F5(5), they're very 'manageable' cameras.

If you're doing a lot of available light shooting, go the F5. It's native sensitivity is 1000 ISO (not the 2000 ISO that Sony claim), but that's still VERY sensitive, and let's you get away with a lot. I find you can comfortably push it one stop to 2000 ISO, but pushing beyond that things start to get noisy.

The ability to move to 16-bit 4K linear raw via the R5, also means that the image-quality of these cameras isn't going to become obsolete for a long time to come.
 
For low/available light, a used F5 is the best deal around, there's been a couple listed on the Sony forum for good prices. Like Grug said, there is nothing this camera cant handle(except flash bulbs), now and for a ways to come, most versatile camera on the market. Add on $1000 for 4K upgrade and your set.

I personally dont believe a full retail priced F55 is a smart buy for most people. Unless you NEED it's global shutter for specific work you do, your basically paying a extra $12k for a wider color gamut that no one can really see anyways.
 
I've owned the F55 since it was released. I have no regrets. I did not play around enough with the perhaps underestimated robust SR Codec, but this past summer I did add the R5 RAW recorder because I feel its really the only way to get the "max" out of these cameras. Plus the SR Codec is HD only, for 4K RGB you have to shoot RAW 16-bit.

If you're leaning towards F65 I feel the F55 is a nice "compromise" - same CFA / extended gamut, also has global shutter, but the F55 is not as big or batter/power hungry. True you can probably get the F65 for less than a new or used F55 but other aspects of owning the F65 can be a hindrance. The sheer amount of data, media cards, storage, etc.. are things to consider.

The F5 is pretty well is everything the F55 is. No global shutter but does it matter to you? The color on the F5 is limited to REC709 due to the CFA, in theory since S.Gamut3 is a wider color space than REC709 it would technically mean that that F5 can not maximize the "bucket" of S.Gamut3.

If I were doing it all over again and having to pick a camera, no doubt it would be the F55 again. I might not need "all" it offers for every job or project but I know it will be in demand and not as easily "displaced" by whatever "next" camera Sony comes out with.

Recently there was a F55 listed with quite a bit included with it for 30% off list. Around $18k or so, great deal since usually you only see 15% off list. Great deals do come around from time to time so if you keep an eye out you can might be able to get a F55 for around the same price as a F5 new or used.

Lastly I'm sure you know this but the F5 has a Sony rated native ISO of 2000 and the F55 is ISO 1250. This is less than 1 stop difference and not a huge deal.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Part II - comparing to Canon...

I've also shot quite a bit of work on the Canon (C100, C300, 5D mark III, and 7D) and in my opinion think they are "cleaner" when you start cranking the ISO. On the F55 I've shot a few things at 3200ISO and it's easy to see noise in your blacks so you have to either overexpose by 1-2 stops to increase the signal-to-noise ratio up from 57db to 63 - 69db but that means you are reducing your dynamic range from 14 stops to 12. Which as a side note means you can just as well shoot with HG7 which give you approximately the same range. ;) Of course you can always use a noise cleaner in post if you wish or have the time for it.

Being a Sony owner but Sony/Canon shooter I do feel that Canon is far more what I'd call a swiss army knife for video covering everything from budgeted commercial and cinema work (which the sony can do) to low-light doc work, or low budget or no-light indie projects, etc.. I've shot live events on Canon in 35mm and sometimes found them quite practical, the glass and fact it works electronically with the body is great!

I really did use to hate shooting on DSLR's but after being paid to DP a bunch of projects where all gear was provided and I was being asked to setup the camera profiles, lighting, etc.. once I did see the results I had absolutely no qualms with it and it really did open up my eyes.

Out of the box, I think Canon looks better than Sony. With Sony you're either using a custom scene profile, grading the image in post, or using some LUTs to get a better look. Some people like the Sony look however, so of course it depends on how you feel about it.

2 cents again.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
Part II - comparing to Canon...

I've also shot quite a bit of work on the Canon (C100, C300, 5D mark III, and 7D) and in my opinion think they are "cleaner" when you start cranking the ISO. On the F55 I've shot a few things at 3200ISO and it's easy to see noise in your blacks so you have to either overexpose by 1-2 stops to increase the signal-to-noise ratio up from 57db to 63-69db but that means you are reducing your dynamic range from 14 stops to 12. Which as a side note means you can just as well shoot with HG7 which give you approximately the same range. ;) Of course you can always use a noise cleaner in post if you wish or have the time for it.

Being a Sony owner but Sony/Canon shooter I do feel that Canon is far more what I'd call a swiss army knife for video covering everything from budgeted commercial and cinema work (which the sony can do) to low-light doc work, or low budget or no-light indie projects, etc.. I've shot live events on Canon in 35mm and sometimes found them quite practical, the glass and fact it works electronically with the body is great!

I really did use to hate shooting on DSLR's but after being paid to DP a bunch of projects where all gear was provided and I was being asked to setup the camera profiles, lighting, etc.. once I did see the results I had absolutely no qualms with it and it really did open up my eyes.

Out of the box, I think Canon looks better than Sony. With Sony you're either using a custom scene profile, grading the image in post, or using some LUTs to get a better look. Some people like the Sony look however, so of course it depends on how you feel about it.

2 cents again.
Click to expand...

So why didn't you just stick with Canon Dennis? Seems like a much better camera with the way you describe it. No reason for Sony.
 
starcentral said:
Part II - comparing to Canon...

I've also shot quite a bit of work on the Canon (C100, C300, 5D mark III, and 7D) and in my opinion think they are "cleaner" when you start cranking the ISO. On the F55 I've shot a few things at 3200ISO and it's easy to see noise in your blacks so you have to either overexpose by 1-2 stops to increase the signal-to-noise ratio up from 57db to 63-69db but that means you are reducing your dynamic range from 14 stops to 12. Which as a side note means you can just as well shoot with HG7 which give you approximately the same range. ;) Of course you can always use a noise cleaner in post if you wish or have the time for it.

Being a Sony owner but Sony/Canon shooter I do feel that Canon is far more what I'd call a swiss army knife for video covering everything from budgeted commercial and cinema work (which the sony can do) to low-light doc work, or low budget or no-light indie projects, etc.. I've shot live events on Canon in 35mm and sometimes found them quite practical, the glass and fact it works electronically with the body is great!

I really did use to hate shooting on DSLR's but after being paid to DP a bunch of projects where all gear was provided and I was being asked to setup the camera profiles, lighting, etc.. once I did see the results I had absolutely no qualms with it and it really did open up my eyes.

Out of the box, I think Canon looks better than Sony. With Sony you're either using a custom scene profile, grading the image in post, or using some LUTs to get a better look. Some people like the Sony look however, so of course it depends on how you feel about it.

2 cents again.
Click to expand...

thank you for the a very detailed info and your time!
few things to consider as its turned out....
 
gene_can_sing said:
So why didn't you just stick with Canon Dennis...
Click to expand...

2 reasons (maybe more by the time I'm done typing)

1.) I knew I would eventually want RAW for feature film work. 2.) you need an external recorder on the C500 to shoot 4K.

There are other things on paper I don't like such as 4K RAW is 10-bit… but again Canon "color science" does seem to make up for it. Kind of even like the fact their C300 is only 8-bit but still looks quite good.

In the end I wanted a camera that could be everything in on package/body. (ie. no external recorders). So after using the F3 for 2 years I bought a RED package and then shortly afterwards the new Sony F cameras were announced so I sold my RED package and waited it out for the F5.. then by the time the cameras were ready to ship changed my mind for the F55.

Color science does seem to have improved a bit on the Sony end with the advent of slog3 and some of their Look Profiles (and 3rd party LUTs like Impulz, etc.. ) so things do seem to be moving along but in my head 5 months ago I found it completely odd that I'd have to use some Kodak LUT or other one to get a different look from the camera. The plus side is I've become extremely great at grading since moving to slog2/3 and now get color/grading jobs regularly on work shot on RED, Canon and Sony.. :cool:
 
Last edited:
By the way, to give you an idea of the F65 "in the field". This was posted in another thread here not too long ago:

attachment.php
 
Anat,
I came from C300. Although it was great for a season and pretty good in low light, the F5 kills it in every way, especially latitude.
Ive shot plenty on F55 v F5, and the difference is negligible. The F55 extra gamut is hardly noticeable, but the global shutter is always a plus (for a pretty price though), but the F5 extra stop in lowlight is often a pleasure.

Ive also shot F65 a bit, and it is sharper, but one hella a beast to handle if you ever on your own. Its also super power hungry, and you limited to PL mount.

BTW, I have a F5 Raw package for sale, with only 176 Hrs. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?331736-F5-RAW-Package-SALE!&highlight= . Its a 25% saving ($7.5K saving), with everything you need to shoot 16bit 4K RAW up to 60P, and up to 240fps RAW at 2k.
The only reason Im selling the F5, is that clients here in SA repeatedly ask for the Epic and I can't keep convincing them its just as good.
 
starcentral said:
Part II - comparing to Canon...

I've also shot quite a bit of work on the Canon (C100, C300, 5D mark III, and 7D) and in my opinion think they are "cleaner" when you start cranking the ISO. On the F55 I've shot a few things at 3200ISO and it's easy to see noise in your blacks so you have to either overexpose by 1-2 stops to increase the signal-to-noise ratio up from 57db to 63 - 69db but that means you are reducing your dynamic range from 14 stops to 12. Which as a side note means you can just as well shoot with HG7 which give you approximately the same range. ;) Of course you can always use a noise cleaner in post if you wish or have the time for it.

Being a Sony owner but Sony/Canon shooter I do feel that Canon is far more what I'd call a swiss army knife for video covering everything from budgeted commercial and cinema work (which the sony can do) to low-light doc work, or low budget or no-light indie projects, etc.. I've shot live events on Canon in 35mm and sometimes found them quite practical, the glass and fact it works electronically with the body is great!

I really did use to hate shooting on DSLR's but after being paid to DP a bunch of projects where all gear was provided and I was being asked to setup the camera profiles, lighting, etc.. once I did see the results I had absolutely no qualms with it and it really did open up my eyes.

Out of the box, I think Canon looks better than Sony. With Sony you're either using a custom scene profile, grading the image in post, or using some LUTs to get a better look. Some people like the Sony look however, so of course it depends on how you feel about it.

2 cents again.
Click to expand...

I have to completely disagree with this statement.

1) From what I've seen on Vimeo and from people who own both the C300 and the F's, the F's are far less noisy. The c300 noise in this side by side is far higher than the FS7

https://vimeo.com/112820371

2) The F's are the Swiss Army knives, not Canons. The F's have a bigger range of codecs can be rigged to more different configurations and are far more suited for cinematic needs because of RAW and extra DR.

3) Color science. They're just different. I shot Canon for years and I'm happy to get away from the super warm skin tones. I'm very happy with what I'm getting from S-Log 3 so far on my FS7. It's just very neutral, low contrast and fantastic for grading. To me, S-Log just looks more high end. When you watch theatrical movies, you rarely see movies that have Canon skin tones aside from Need For Speed shot on the C500 which did NOT look good IMO. Movies that looked really good shot on the Fs - Annie, Oblivion, After Earth, Deliver Us From Evil - none of those had super warm, Canon like skin tones.

I feel like with S-Log since you do have to grade, I tend to get a look that's a little more unique, reflective of my tastes. With Canon, everyones videos looks really similar.

I completely agree with Justin Campos. If you are going to spend $40K on an F55, you would probably be better off getting a Red Dragon. In LA, the Dragon is requested far, far more than the F55, not necessarily because it's that much better but it's just more well known. You will definitely get more jobs with a Dragon. With that said, the Dragon is basically RAW only, so the F55 is more versatile. My plan for this year is to possibly pick up a used Dragon when they do the Battle Tested sales, save about $8K to $9K which pays for my FS7. Two cameras for the price of one Dragon. I feel with Red because it's a RAW only workflow, you kind of need an smaller, more versatile camera like the FS7 to compliment it.

I suppose the F55 is kind of like a Red and an FS7 rolled into one, but yeah... for that much cash you need to get the camera that will get you more work IMO, which is the Dragon.
 
Well to be fair I did say "out of the box" regarding color but now you're talking about slog3 and grading it.

I agree there is lots to be liked about grading slog3 and getting looks (part of why I went the Sony route) but part of my definition to being a "swiss army knife" doesn't just stop at camera specs like dynamic range or number of codecs a camera has. One thing that can be really great about Canon is if you do a lot of travelling or shooting that needs to be more inconspicuous and unobtrusive, and you need decent mobility. I think for some people this can be a big deal. Canon is not perfect in every way but it's image quality is decent and its versatility should not be denied.

No matter what camera we chose there's always some level of compromise. If there wasn't you wouldn't need an FS7 in addition to the RED EPIC.


Well, so I wonder what Anatusa has decided?
 
well to be honest i did not decide yet! But thank you guys for your very helpful comments , and plz i welcome if there is more!

to be honest i am kind of being pushed into red epic world, but i am scared about it, its seems to be complicated , never seen one yet my self. i was told just the same , that clients much often asking about for epic and arri. here in eastern eu for some reasons sony is not very welcome...

about f 5/55 i just love how compact it looks, and its a cam with lots of options.... it really looks like a universal cam, there is something for run and guy, and for documentory, and for big movie projects... and codec options - love it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top