F65: F65 for sale in UK

starcentral said:
I understand, no hard feelings and no worries. I'm glad you did post them. I always thought to myself these images might be a Sony, but they are extra-ordinary and at least I was right about that. :beer:

For me "Sony look" doesn't apply to Sony cameras outside of F5/F5/FS7 as silly as that sounds.

I was looking at a used F900's the other day and wondering about my theory that it's Sony's "old" color science that is bad, but really that's not even it because I'm quite certain F23/F35/F900 were all just plain old s-gamut back then. So one key difference has to be CCD vs CMOS.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

CCD is I think a key difference, the F35 has a CCD the Ikonoskop a-cam dII has a CCD and they both have some kind of magic in there which we call organic.
But then we look at the Alexa, and we see a CMOS. That leaves question marks, or at least for me.
 
Assuming you are asking about the F65:
To my understanding, the 7Q can record the HD signal from the HD-SDI of the F65. That output is 10-bit, so it should translate to ProRes HQ pretty well. However, the RAW from F65 is via the fiber-optic link and thus cannot be supported by the 7Q.

If speaking about F23, well, I defer to others
 
JMtheDP said:
I am just outside of London. The rate is similar to an ALEXA or Epic.

Just like the F35, the F65 is the victim of a lot of Sony-bashing, misinformation, ignorance and outright lies.

The low end crowd over here is as stupid as anywhere else... "We want RED because it does 5K!", "Well this has an 8/6k sensor..." "Why would I want files that big? That is crazy!". "Well shoot 1080P then", "no but I need the dynamic range of 4k!".... You get the idea.

Or people who don't shoot F65 because the raw files are too big, but then shoot ALEXA open gate raw. Or prores 4k 444.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you in many accounts, the F65's unpopularity is Sony's fault too. A mix of arrogance, lack or market knowledge and shortsightedness. The mistakes they made with the F35 they basically repeated again with the F65 and added on it three fold. What they got right with the F35 I'm pretty certain was because of Panavision's input. That's clear when you look at Sony's track record before and after the Genesis/F35. But when it got to the F65 it seems Panavision was no longer on board and Sony proceeded to make mistake after mistake, again.

Had Sony been less arrogant and offered other formats besides their own, offered some form or compressed raw and made the camera more flexible I believe the F65 would have made a bigger dent in the industry. It's embarrassing that arguably the most technically sound camera produced today has only a handful of productions on it's resume.

Technically there isn't anything wrong with the F65. But that's not how the world works. Technically anybody would never choose to record ProRes in a multi-million dollar production shooting on Alexa when they can shoot ArriRAW. But it happens all the time and it's way more used than ArriRAW. So to offer only uncompressed raw thinking that anybody who wants a real 4K camera will also want uncompressed raw is either shortsighted, ignorant or arrogant. Most likely all three in this case.

The truth is the F65 backfired badly. Proof of that is the release of the F55 which is clearly an Alexa wannabe. You just need to look at it. Their choice of going with a fully closed system is what came back to bite them in the elbow. This is not the 1990's where they could make a killing selling and licensing tape formats.

This same closed system is also the reason the F65 will never have the "after life" power the F35 has. The camera is basically useless without the SR-R4 and once that is no longer "enough" or desirable the F65 is dead. While the F35 for being more modular has transcended the format it was sold and designed for. And if tomorrow some company would offer a recorder that can convert 1080p to 4K on the fly, you could still record everything the F35 has to offer.

Hopefully Sony will finally learn and stop designing technically "perfect" cameras consulting their engineers and start consulting artists to help them develop a camera that real world DPs will enjoy to use.
 
Viddovation said:
I've been posting F23 RGB 4:4:4 shots upscaled 200% to 3840x2160 (UHD) in the FS7 forum discussion of the "Sony Look" as a "mystery camera." While Dennis (starcentral) did not similarities to F35, no one called the footage out as not being 4k. It goes to show that what Sony has really failed at with it's flagship cameras is not the picture quality or resolution - but the perception and marketing. Additionally - no one seems to have perceived that the "mystery camera" had a smaller sensor. In this way, 2/3" is also a victim of perception - we perceive that 2/3" is the realm of news and "video" and aren't prepared to acknowledge the reality of a camera with a 2/3" sensor but cine style gamma and color science.

It's baffling.

EDIT: Further, when given an ungraded shot, and not told whether the source is Sony or not, no one was able to assess it as having the "Sony Look". Again, perception is the key. People have a predetermined notion that Sony doesn't do digital cinema like Red or Arri.
Click to expand...

I saw that thread and thought about replying to it several times. But ultimately decided not to as there is not much point. The thread just got "weird".

But of course there is a Sony look. Just as there is a Canon one and Panasonic and RED or ARRI. But people just started jumping in the trenches to defend Sony and the thread lost it's way.

One can certainly fool people into thinking a Sony camera is not a Sony camera and vice-verse. The point is that you are trying to fool people. Of course you can try to disguise you are shooting on 2/3" instead of 35mm. But only by faking things. You will never fool anybody half educated if you shoot both cameras precisely the same . If you shot both using a 35mm lens at T4 and at the very same distance from the subject there isn't a camera operator worth his salt who won't see the difference. Anything else you do to minimize the difference is faking at best and will either change the FOV, AOV, DOF or some other image characteristic. You would be faking it, which is the point. Why fake it? If what you want is 35mm, then don't shoot 2/3". If you shoot 2/3", just embrace it. But there is a big difference and this is the real point in my opinion.

Same goes for aesthetics. Why try to make a Sony look like an ARRI? In the end the point is that you are going through the trouble of making your camera look like another one.
 
JMtheDP said:
Hence, "Panavision" Genesis = huge success
Sony F35 - not so much.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. If Panavision and Sony still worked together and there would be a Genesis II based on the F65, it would be in way more shows than the F65 was ever tested for.
 
Aaveum said:
I saw that thread and thought about replying to it several times. But ultimately decided not to as there is not much point. The thread just got "weird".

But of course there is a Sony look. Just as there is a Canon one and Panasonic and RED or ARRI. But people just started jumping in the trenches to defend Sony and the thread lost it's way.

One can certainly fool people into thinking a Sony camera is not a Sony camera and vice-verse. The point is that you are trying to fool people. Of course you can try to disguise you are shooting on 2/3" instead of 35mm. But only by faking things. You will never fool anybody half educated if you shoot both cameras precisely the same . If you shot both using a 35mm lens at T4 and at the very same distance from the subject there isn't a camera operator worth his salt who won't see the difference. Anything else you do to minimize the difference is faking at best and will either change the FOV, AOV, DOF or some other image characteristic. You would be faking it, which is the point. Why fake it? If what you want is 35mm, then don't shoot 2/3". If you shoot 2/3", just embrace it. But there is a big difference and this is the real point in my opinion.

Same goes for aesthetics. Why try to make a Sony look like an ARRI? In the end the point is that you are going through the trouble of making your camera look like another one.
Click to expand...


Sure, if you shoot both sensor sizes at the same t-stop then the difference is apparent. But seeing as the market currently lets me buy an F23 for $3,500 and T1.6 DigiPrimes with exceptional optical performance wide open for prices similar to what one can buy 35mm DSLR lenses that perform best at f4.0 or f5.6 - well, suddenly we can evaluate performace to price.

You ask "Why fake it?" and one really good reason is - cost. If faking "4k cinema" with an F23 and a DigiPrime lens set costs $20,000 and buying into an Alexa and Master Primes is $200,000 - well, that's a reason.

But to be clear - I like the F23 for what it does easily. I'm just showing that it has a wider range and better performance than people think it does.
 
starcentral said:
I understand, no hard feelings and no worries. I'm glad you did post them. I always thought to myself these images might be a Sony, but they are extra-ordinary and at least I was right about that. :beer:

For me "Sony look" doesn't apply to Sony cameras outside of F5/F5/FS7 as silly as that sounds.

I was looking at a used F900's the other day and wondering about my theory that it's Sony's "old" color science that is bad, but really that's not even it because I'm quite certain F23/F35/F900 were all just plain old s-gamut back then. So one key difference has to be CCD vs CMOS.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In my opinion the old F900 doesn't hold up the same way the F35 does.

As for why the F35 looks better or different than the other Sony cameras, CCD may have something to do with it. But it's not the reason in my opinion. Like somebody already said the ARRIs are CMOS based and still look great too. The F900 is CCD based and doesn't compare to the F35. Not even the F23 does.

In my opinion it's because of calibration, image depth, dynamic range allocation and use, and in the case of the F35 motion pattern.
 
Aaveum said:
The F900 is CCD based and doesn't compare to the F35. Not even the F23 does.

In my opinion it's because of calibration, image depth, dynamic range allocation and use, and in the case of the F35 motion pattern.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree on the F23 not holding up to the F35. I think they're both stellar.
 
Viddovation said:
Sure, if you shoot both sensor sizes at the same t-stop then the difference is apparent. But seeing as the market currently lets me buy an F23 for $3,500 and T1.6 DigiPrimes with exceptional optical performance wide open for prices similar to what one can buy 35mm DSLR lenses that perform best at f4.0 or f5.6 - well, suddenly we can evaluate performace to price.

You ask "Why fake it?" and one really good reason is - cost. If faking "4k cinema" with an F23 and a DigiPrime lens set costs $20,000 and buying into an Alexa and Master Primes is $200,000 - well, that's a reason.

But to be clear - I like the F23 for what it does easily. I'm just showing that it has a wider range and better performance than people think it does.
Click to expand...

To each his own, but if I was going to fake "4K Cinema" I would use a F35. Cinema has always been majorly 35mm. Why start faking something from a deeper hole?

I understand the cost factor but at that point I'm sure you would do better with a F35 and Sony F3 PL lenses than a F23 and Digiprimes. Because you would have less to fake with a F35. Besides, although I have never tested the F23 for resolution I'm pretty sure the F35 resolves more. As far as I know the F23 is a true HD camera while the F35 resolves way beyond even 2K based on my tests. Most likely due to the oversampling. So any resolution or sharpness you may gain with Digiprimes over the Sony F3 PL set, and I don't really think you are gaining much if at all, could be negated by the F23 resolving less than the F35. But again, the Sony F3 lenses are very sharp and would resolve anything the F23 could throw at them in HD.

On top of that you get better dynamic range and sensitivity with the F35 and 12-bit over 10-bit. Overall the F35 is just a better camera and it is a better cinema camera too, if you are trying to fake "4k Cinema". Because it's a 3-chip set up, it could be argued the F23 has better colors and technically it is true. But processing and AD conversion also play a role in this and the F35 here is second to none.

But my point was not only concerning 2/3". It was also concerning this idea of imitating other cameras images. People miss the point which is they have to imitate. If the other camera is not really better, why imitate? If there is no real difference why the need to imitate? But I digress as I know this is an endless debate.

By the way, don't mean to nitpick. But I saw you mentioned Digiprimes are Master Primes quality. I think they are actually more like Ultra Primes really.
 
Viddovation said:
I'm going to disagree on the F23 not holding up to the F35. I think they're both stellar.
Click to expand...

Sure, everybody is free to disagree. But the F35 is the better camera. Even if you discredit it's look, the F35 has more dynamic range, is more sensitive, does 12-bit, and I believe, from the top of my head, the signal to noise ratio is better too. It only makes sense. It's much newer than the F23.

Edit: But I am not saying the F23 is not stunning. This is not what I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
Aaveum said:
Sure, everybody is free to disagree. But the F35 is the better camera. Even if you discredit it's look, the F35 has more dynamic range, is more sensitive, does 12-bit, and I believe, from the top of my head, the signal to noise ratio is better too. It only makes sense. It's much newer than the F23.
Click to expand...

Yes, the F35 does 12 bit, but that was added late, and many of the big productions that used the F35 were done in 10bit.

The F23 has just as much dynamic range as the F35, if not more:
http://onemanfilm.blogspot.com/2007/06/look-baby-13-stops-dynamic-range-get.html

Plenty of cinema has been shot with 16mm. Plenty of high end film-style tv have been shot on 2/3". It's not less cinematic to shoot 2/3". It's just different. I happen to own the F35 and Ultra Primes. I'm not rationalizing this argument as someone who only owns one of the production paths being discussed. I own both. I enjoy both.

The DigiPrimes were apparently $30k+ per single new. They have to resolve higher than Ultras or Masters do because the sensor is smaller. There's none better for 2/3" format. They are the top of the line.
 
Aaveum said:
Had Sony been less arrogant and offered other formats besides their own, offered some form or compressed raw and made the camera more flexible I believe the F65 would have made a bigger dent in the industry. It's embarrassing that arguably the most technically sound camera produced today has only a handful of productions on it's resume.

Technically there isn't anything wrong with the F65. But that's not how the world works. Technically anybody would never choose to record ProRes in a multi-million dollar production shooting on Alexa when they can shoot ArriRAW. But it happens all the time and it's way more used than ArriRAW. So to offer only uncompressed raw thinking that anybody who wants a real 4K camera will also want uncompressed raw is either shortsighted, ignorant or arrogant. Most likely all three in this case.

Hopefully Sony will finally learn and stop designing technically "perfect" cameras consulting their engineers and start consulting artists to help them develop a camera that real world DPs will enjoy to use.
Click to expand...

See, misinformation. Sorry Aaveum, I respect you but I gotta call you out on this one. The F65's raw is not uncompressed, and never has been. The "SQ" setting is 3.6:1, and the "lite" setting (most popular) is 6:1.

Sony also added the SR-CODEC option which made a lot of sense because it would integrate well into any SR-tape based workflow (still a popular way of delivering material). You can go from SR card to SR tape without a transcode.

Is it a perfect camera? Nope, not at all. But it does have its fans. The F65 was ahead of its time and THAT was its downfall, in my opinion (the Thomson Viper suffered a similar fate, although the F65 has been a runaway success in comparison).

There is an area the F65 has been used that we all forget about and that is live TV. A lot of F65s covered things like the world cup, etc.... That SR-R4 comes off and you can put an IP pipe on the thing, or fibre optics.

You are, however, absolutely correct that SONY are utterly useless when it comes to listening to their markets. They don't even listen to the people they employ. I feel only the very top cameras (F35/F65) get even the slightest consideration of "artistic" not just technical requirements.
 
Last edited:
Aaveum said:
It's much newer than the F23.
Click to expand...

FWIW the F35 was released later than the F23, but it isn't "newer" per se. Sony had an agreement with Panavision about when they could release their version of Genesis. So Sony did all the electronics work building the F23, and then released the F35 when they were allowed. Hence you can upgrade an F23 to an F35.

There were lots of other plans that got canned, like upgrading the SRW-9000s to internal card recording. Now that is a forgotten camera.
 
In addition to what James said, the F35 is a different line of research from the F23 - a single RGB stripe sensor versus a 3 chip prism block. The F23 is the pinnacle of 3 chip prism block CCD tech. The F35 is something different, and has advantages and disadvantages. One thing that favors the F23's prism approach is the color accuracy. I would have to expect it's color sampling accuracy to be higher than that of the F35.
 
Viddovation, this debate can go on forever. But I can only talk from my own experiences.

I have seen real world tests comparing the F23 and the F35 and the F35 has more dynamic range. I'm not basing this on a blog post or promotional material. I'm talking about tests done by working Hollywood DPs at the Universal lot. I believe the F23 tops off at 10-stops, maybe 11-stops. But whatever it is the F35 is capable of more latitute and has more stops. You believe if you want. Again just reporting what I've seen and experienced.

I never said cinema is 35mm only. I only said if I was faking anything I would definitely start from the most used. As for using the F23 for cinema, I think I said this before, but the F23 was a transitional camera. It was great when we couldn't have a 35mm digital cinema camera. Now it's use would be the same as choosing 16mm film. A niche use. But nobody chooses 16mm film and tries to disguise it as 35mm film. It defeats the purpose. Yet most films shot on the F23, Viper and F900 tried to disguise it. Because the reason they went with these cameras was different than the reasons Black Swan or Leaving Las Vegas was shot on 16mm. So in my opinion I don't think the argument is valid.

Because a 2/3" lens is resolves more than a 35mm lens (normally) it doesn't mean the 2/3" lens will resolve more on a 2/3" camera than the 35mm lens will on a 35mm camera. Like you said yourself, it needs to be sharper because of the smaller target. It's a different matter.

Lastly, I understand you have both cameras and I don't mean to tell you which camera to enjoy most. And while I do not own a F23 I have used it my share of times. If you remember I was the one who brought it up in the thread we were both taking part in months ago. And I brought it up for a reason. It's a great camera.

But it is what it is. The F35 has an edge. There is a reason most F23 owners converted their cameras to a F35.
This doesn't mean you can't enjoy yours or that the F23 is a bad camera.

All the best!
 
Aaveum said:
Viddovation, this debate can go on forever. But I can only talk from my own experiences.

I have seen real world tests comparing the F23 and the F35 and the F35 has more dynamic range. I'm not basing this on a blog post or promotional material. I'm talking about tests done by working Hollywood DPs at the Universal lot. I believe the F23 tops off at 10-stops, maybe 11-stops. But whatever it is the F35 is capable of more latitute and has more stops. You believe if you want. Again just reporting what I've seen and experienced.

I never said cinema is 35mm only. I only said if I was faking anything I would definitely start from the most used. As for using the F23 for cinema, I think I said this before, but the F23 was a transitional camera. It was great when we couldn't have a 35mm digital cinema camera. Now it's use would be the same as choosing 16mm film. A niche use. But nobody chooses 16mm film and tries to disguise it as 35mm film. It defeats the purpose. Yet most films shot on the F23, Viper and F900 tried to disguise it. Because the reason they went with these cameras was different than the reasons Black Swan or Leaving Las Vegas was shot on 16mm. So in my opinion I don't think the argument is valid.

Because a 2/3" lens is resolves more than a 35mm lens (normally) it doesn't mean the 2/3" lens will resolve more on a 2/3" camera than the 35mm lens will on a 35mm camera. Like you said yourself, it needs to be sharper because of the smaller target. It's a different matter.

Lastly, I understand you have both cameras and I don't mean to tell you which camera to enjoy most. And while I do not own a F23 I have used it my share of times. If you remember I was the one who brought it up in the thread we were both taking part in months ago. And I brought it up for a reason. It's a great camera.

But it is what it is. The F35 has an edge. There is a reason most F23 owners converted their cameras to a F35.
This doesn't mean you can't enjoy yours or that the F23 is a bad camera.

All the best!
Click to expand...

Indeed, I shall respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
 
JMtheDP said:
FWIW the F35 was released later than the F23, but it isn't "newer" per se. Sony had an agreement with Panavision about when they could release their version of Genesis. So Sony did all the electronics work building the F23, and then released the F35 when they were allowed. Hence you can upgrade an F23 to an F35.

There were lots of other plans that got canned, like upgrading the SRW-9000s to internal card recording. Now that is a forgotten camera.
Click to expand...


And the SR-R3, 2K upgrade for the F35, yes I'm aware of it.

What you are saying is correct. What is not is the assumption that Sony held the F23 electronics in a closet waiting for when they could release the F35 and just used that. The F35 is improved even compared to the Genesis. The F35 has a better S/N ratio and and the Genesis is limited to 10-bit. The F35 also has the edge in dynamic range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top