F65: F65 vs F35

eddavid

eddavid

Carbonite Member
F35 vs F65


F35 strengths:

CCD - motion so much like film
lighter
color
how reacts to mixed lighting
image feels like it has meat on it

F65 strengths:
extra stop of exposure
build in NDS
more dynamic range?
no dead pixels

I want to test the 2 together.
 
Loads of info already on this forum. Is there something specific you wanted to discussed that perhaps hasn't been covered in previous threads?

Most people find the F35 had a look that they find magical...some even prefer it to Alexa. Most people also find the F65 not appealing in terms of image, weight and/or workflow.

If you do your test, please post it here. Would be fun to see.
-Best of luck!
 
DuckHunt said:
F35 vs F65


F35 strengths:

CCD - motion so much like film
lighter
color
how reacts to mixed lighting
image feels like it has meat on it

F65 strengths:
extra stop of exposure
build in NDS
more dynamic range?
no dead pixels

I want to test the 2 together.
Click to expand...

Is this a comparison of two specific, individual camera bodies, or a generalization? Because both CCD's and CMOS chips can and will suffer from "dead" or "lit" pixels. One of the big differences between now and "back then", now most cameras are able to automatically compensate for almost all lit/dead pixels, whereas in the past, when it got too bad you had to go into a special menu and manually mask pixels(or pixel cluster) or send it in to be done.
 
DuckHunt said:
F35 vs F65


F35 strengths:

CCD - motion so much like film
lighter
color
how reacts to mixed lighting
image feels like it has meat on it

F65 strengths:
extra stop of exposure
build in NDS
more dynamic range?
no dead pixels

I want to test the 2 together.
Click to expand...

Better and worse will be mostly a matter of opinion here. If you favor resolution, the F65 will be better. If you favor color, skin tones and motion the F35 will be better. If you want raw, the F65 is the choice. If you understand 12-bit 444 LOG is comparable to 16-bit LINEAR raw then the F35 is back in the dispute.

Your list of strengths above already answers the question for me. I can always add ND in my mattebox and can control my lighting to live without the extra stop of dynamic range. But I can‘t put colored gel in front of the F65 sensor to give me F35 colors and neither can I make the F65 image move like the F35's does. And since I don‘t care for resolution once we have reached 2K, my choice is the F35. Yours may vary.
 
Just curious, why hasn't any camera manufacturer made a camera like the F35 to match it's motion cadence? There is definitely something magical about that camera and I think it has a lot to do with motion.
 
Alexander.M said:
Just curious, why hasn't any camera manufacturer made a camera like the F35 to match it's motion cadence? There is definitely something magical about that camera and I think it has a lot to do with motion.
Click to expand...

has a lot to do with the global nature of the sensor, vs the rolling cmos censors on 90% of cameras out there. It's not 100% like film, but it does feel closer. I'd argue that the Alexa Studio models have the same / very similar feel (their cmos sensor switches into a sort of ccd type light collection/dump cycle when the spinning mirror mode is on), while having at least the appearance of greater detail, though usually if someone is shooting with the Studio they're going Arriraw, and I'll admit I've seen very little F35 footage where it was going as uncompressed as possible to either SR or to a codex on board.

everything went Cmos for economic reasons, mostly having to do with tooling and fabrication costs per unit (cmos is much cheaper to produce than CCD). The F35 5k CCD was very expensive with almost no other devices it was or could be used in economically (to the best of my knowledge).
 
Did test with f35 and f65, prefer the look of the f35. Red is handled better. Mixed color is better. Skintones look real. Feels very organic. This is really a gem of a camera.
 
DuckHunt said:
Did test with f35 and f65, prefer the look of the f35. Red is handled better. Mixed color is better. Skintones look real. Feels very organic. This is really a gem of a camera.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear you got to test them side by side! You should post the video here. Would be nice for the community to have here as a visual reference.
-Thanks in advance!
 
laverdir said:
What do you own now?
Click to expand...

I own a couple lesser cameras, which are perfectly capable of capturing acceptable images. I also have local access to higher end cameras like the latest 8K Red. That being said, I am in the process of purchasing a used Alexa package. I no longer shoot full time, but when I do shoot it's generally regional automotive commercials, and the Alexa is just a rock solid hammer for knocking them out at a reasonable price for a used kit.

Dave
 
abreu-canedo said:
Most people find the F35 had a look that they find magical...some even prefer it to Alexa.
Click to expand...


I am one who prefers the look of the F35 over the Alexa. It has nothing to do with image quality as the Alexa image quality is also great. I just like the F35 aesthetics better and it has a unique look that no other camera can match or replicate. And since everything is basically shot on the Alexa, the F35 look is special among the sea of Alexa images. Now that the Alexa Classic is dropping down in price considerably and everybody is buying them, the medium will be even more saturated with the Alexa look. They are selling for basically the same price as a good and complete F35 set up. Since they already have a recorder built in and come with EVFs and for the F35 you normally need to buy those extra, the prices are very on pair currently. So Alexas will be even more common now.

The combination of great color because of the RGB CCD, better motion because of the global shutter CCD, the overall image aesthetics again aided by the fact it is a CCD and RGB, plus the very high quality signal it puts out and the fact the F35 is much more rare, makes the F35 a very unique tool.

I guess if you are competing for being hired, having the name ARRI to offer is probably good for business. But when you are producing your own stuff and just want to make great images that rivals anything out there, the F35 is extremely hard to beat and gives you a unique feeling to the image. In fact, it‘s technically unbeatable since we are probably not going to see another full RGB global shutter 35mm CCD high end cinema camera. Cameras coming out can be sharper cameras, offer more frame rates and other smaller factors. But the overall image doesn't face much of a chance of being beaten any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top