F3: Go from F3 and EX3 to FS700?

starcentral said:
Morton, what do you say about all the pixel peeping going on in the FS700 thread - are the edge black line artifacts as bad as some have shown frame grabs of? And also any comment on the yellow highlight aliasing/artificating which were also posted?
Click to expand...


Sorry Dennis, I have not been following that thread. Will have to check it out when I have time. I tend not to pixel peep, every camera system has limitations and I try to work arround them. I had seen some aliasing on sharp edges last year when I got the FS700. But was so pleased just to have slow motion at the time tended to over look and shoot around them if possible.

cheers
Morton
 
Osslund said:
I already have a Hyperdeck shuttle 2 and an Atomos Samurai Blade.

The camera thing has more to do with getting the job. If I only had my F3, which I charge more for than the EX3, I couldn't do certain jobs due to the higher cost of that camera with lenses and such. There's where the EX3 kicks in. It's my budget alternative and I get the job. I could charge less for the F3 and shoot everything with it but then again why would a client pay more for the F3 once I've lowered my rental fee one time? In that scenario I would be better off having the least expensive camera and always charge less for my camera equipment. That's the bottle neck.
Click to expand...

I can see your point. But I charge the same rate no matter which of my cameras I am using.

Incidently I bought the FS700, to replace a Z1U that I had since they came out in 2005, for the slow motion capabilities and to step into 4K. The FS700 has proven to have been an excellent choice.

cheers
 
It's always good to vent these things with other camera owners. The more I think of it I'd be better off just keeping what I have for a while longer. I didn't know that the newer Sony cameras like the FS700 and F5/55 had real issues. I just might pick up a used cheap S35 camera or just wait and see.
 
While they have issues they both shoot 4k ... if you care!

Most of those issues seem to be either due to small pixels, or the effort of onboard downscaling.

S
 
Osslund said:
It's always good to vent these things with other camera owners. The more I think of it I'd be better off just keeping what I have for a while longer. I didn't know that the newer Sony cameras like the FS700 and F5/55 had real issues. I just might pick up a used cheap S35 camera or just wait and see.
Click to expand...

As hard as it is to resist the urge to upgrade to the latest and greatest camera-wise, unless there is a seriously pressing need (i.e. producers refusing to hire you for not having raw or 4k etc.) I think it makes a good deal more sense to skip a generation and wait for the 3rd generation of these large-sensor cameras to arrive - at the rate things are going you'll only have to wait 18-24 months for newer cameras to come on the scene anyway, and they get better each time - and lets face it, no one - ever - is going to complain about the image quality you can currently get out of your F3 in 10-bit SLOG, it's gorgeous - people simply won't object to it (now or for the foreseeable future). Specs simply don't tell the full story where images are concerned.

Good images are never outdated by superior technical specs. The F5/F55 for example, I've shot with the F55, (and perhaps more importantly, spent a great deal of time in post with its footage) and to be perfectly honest, beyond the added resolution I really can't see a difference between it and the F3 as far as finished deliverables go. 16-bit linear raw is incredible, don't get me wrong, but unless it's a really intense grade I just don't see much difference between the two when you play them side-by-side - I certainly couldn't pick one from the other in a line-up. So although the new cameras DESTROY the the older F3 in a spec-sheet war, the difference isn't as significant as it seemingly should be all-told.

I know I'm champing at the bit to get an Amira when she lands (and keep the F3 for B-cam duties), but as much as I love the image from Arri Alev sensor, and as much as I love the richer and deeper file quality you get from its 12-bit ProRes4444 (relative to 10-bit ProRes from the F3), the truth is that you really only see a slightly better image from the Arri (by eye I'd call it 15%, maybe 20% better - if you had to put numbers to it) it gives you slightly nicer highlights, a little more resolution and superior bit-depth, and that's about it (as far as image quality is concerned) - so is it worth such a significant investment for the benefits the Amira would offer?

If we're being sensible, I think the answer is a fairly definite 'no'.

That same money spent on lights, lenses and support gear will allow you to do significantly more than the newer camera will - and more importantly, good lights, lenses and support gear will be relevant for your next camera, and the camera after that, and even the one after that.
 
Last edited:
Well 4k is not that interesting today. I work with Red raw in post now and then and it has greater resolution yes, but both the Alexa at 1080p and F3 at 1080p looks better in the end. I haven't heard any complains about iq so far using my F3.
 
I have to say, every time I shoot with my F3 and the Samurai Blade I am amazed.
For skin tones it is absolutely head and shoulders better than anything I have seen coming from the FS700.
Perhaps this will change, but frankly I feel something is going on with the FS700 sensor and the way the color is processed that just has never felt right to me.
Only the Alexa seems to do better for skin in my book, and not by that much. Maybe an extra half stop in terms of DR on a face.

I think it's important to be careful about using balance sheets and return on investment as a way of determining which camera to buy.
Certain tools have a way of opening up certain looks, and at the end of the day isn't that an important part of what a client is looking for?
Sometimes you have to stretch in terms of investment in order to reach a new plateau in terms of return.

The other aspect which I think is important is ease of use and efficiency in the field.
Just as cinema lenses are not necessarily better in IQ than many photo lenses, but miles ahead in mechanical efficiency for shooting film, so too are some cameras. Unfortunately, I cannot help but feel that many of Sony's cameras have too many buttons and are too complicated. They are plastic and fragile and not made for the long haul or intense use. The newer F5/55 is definitely a step up in terms of durability and usuability than the F3 and the FS700 (which is an ergonomic nightmare). These newer models are definitely a class act, and that ultimately will help in attracting a different kind of client. I am certain that a client will not look at an operator who brings an F5/55 on the set in the same way as one who brings an FS700. They also seem to be units which will have a longer career in terms of their expandability and lifespan.

It strikes me that you are looking for an ergonomic, affordable solution which will spare things down and create greater efficiency. I would pause for reflection on whether or not the FS700 really will provide that for you over the long haul. Perhaps it is more of a sideways move than a move upwards in terms of a professional solution.
 
Last edited:
Yo

I agree with you on all points but robustness. My FS100 has been supremely good at not falling apart. Digital rev has various comedy video showing the toughness of plastic consumer items. Bendy plastic with some give can be very very strong.

S
 
You are right. There are many things to consider not only the economics. I've said to myself when I heard of the F5 that after a year or two I would pick up a used one. I might stick to that.
 
grug says everything there really is to say about cameras, keeping up to date, and what's really important in the end.

good post.
 
Money wise my F3 with s-log and external recorder is super great. I love it for what it does. I wish it had this and that sure but I won't buy a more expensive camera, ever. I bough it used and went as far as I could justify.

I see used FS100s going cheaper and cheaper so that could be a way to provide a less expensive camera to my clients. It's far from perfect but way better than to shoot with 5Ds at least.
 
What happens when you get the 4K upgrade exactly? Do you get additional SDI ports ? If so can you use them as a 2nd (display clean) SDI port like you have on an F3?
 
Lenilenapi said:
What happens when you get the 4K upgrade exactly? Do you get additional SDI ports ? If so can you use them as a 2nd (display clean) SDI port like you have on an F3?
Click to expand...

The 4K upgrade for the FS700 sends a 4K signal via the SDI port at the back of the camera - its datarate is far greater than 3G-SDI can usually support, so they're clearly using some kind of special sauce on it - but that's it basically, access to 4K via the SDI port.
 
Thanks, i was hoping it might be 2 like the F3 as I find that quite convenient for using an external recorder and an EVF and or onboard TV Logic. However I think it would not make that much difference to loop through.

Re switching to an FS700. I am interested for 4K , high speed and speedbooster ( mainly for IS which is a big deal to me.)
However I'm waiting to see if the Odyssey 7Q compressed options turn out to be real or vaporware. Until then I am considering the idea of an Optitek EF F3 adapter solely for the IS on Canon lenses. $1750 is a hefty price just for IS but I already have a Canon 17-55 and am not sure how much more you need for handheld work anyway (maybe a 24-105 f4?)
 
Last edited:
I think the idea is you weigh it against the cost of PL lenses or at least that is the kind of calculus they would like us to use.
 
I only have EF lenses for use with my F3. Using the MTF adapter today but will get the Optitek if I decide to keep my F3 and when Optitek are out of the backorder. I don't need it until May next year anyway.

PL primes are great but just as I couldn't put more money into a camera than what I did with the F3, I can't justify getting a full set of PL lenses. I don't see the use of L glass as a big enough compromise either. $1750 may sound high but it's more cost effective than buying PL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top