F55: Has this happened to anyone else?

Sami2

Active member
Sent my f55 to repairs and they informed that someone had used too long screws when mounting something to the top holes...
TopCover.jpg
 
You have no idea how often this happens. Assistants don't tust floppy Noga arms, and they don't use the disk nuts on them properly lock them down into place. Instead they just crank the crap out of them into the socket until they can go no further. I've seen tripod socket holes ripped out, magnesium camera frames cracked, circuit boards pushed completely through, you name it. It's amazing what damage a gorilla can inflict.
 
I rented a Matthews DC Slider out for a song to some friends making their movie. When it came back the fulcrum bolt threads were entirely stripped. I got them to pay for the repair, but it still took several weeks before I had it back in service.
 
Luckily, that if there can even be anything lcky on this insident, this happened prior to me getting the camera, so i am not paying for the new top cover and an hour of labour used to do that replacement :)
 
By the way while sony now has my f55 at their repair center had to borrow an fs7 for a shoot, man the slog3 on fs7 is weird on gamma. After applying 709 lut i still had to add a pretty hefty gamma gurve to pull dwn shadows and to open highlights hence the image was way too flat.

Did the shoot at 1600 iso and over exposed one stop that i turned down in post. After this the image still had a lot of color noise which made tracking very very time consuming...
 
I was asking about hence my body is an early 2013 model, so maybe those holes were not 9mm deep at that time...

Does anyone have any know issues appering with the early 2013 bodies of f55?
 
Did the shoot at 1600 iso and over exposed one stop that i turned down in post. After this the image still had a lot of color noise which made tracking very very time consuming...

The actual 'native' sensitivity of the F5/FS7 sensor is 1000 ISO, so 1600 is still 2/3 stop underexposed. You really need to rate the camera at 1000 ISO if you want clean, noiseless images.
 
Hopefully Sony takes care of it properly and its 100% right when you get it back. Me and a friend both just sent our cams in for ProRes board installs(a day apart). I sent my body(only) in the original box packed inside another larger box filled with packing. I received my camera back in just the Sony box. No other protection, period. And my friend received his back in the wrong shipping case without his VF and missing screws from the body.
 
"Sony's native ISO rating for the FS7 of 2000ISO"
as I was shooting at 1600 and over exposing it a stop that equals to 800 iso.
Inorder to get totally rid of the noise the camera would propably have to be rated at 500 iso.
Over all it felt worse to shoot with and had a lot worse picture than the fs700 with 4k raw extension, luckily I will siin get my F55 back
:)​
 
Sami2,

how were you making the exposure correction in post, what software and what 709 LUT were you using?

S-Log3 is S-Log3 is S-Log3 regardless of what the camera is, so something is awry there. I'm talking about the contrast, but if something is going screwy in the 709 linearisation, that can have a knock-on in terms of noise,

Ben
 
"S-Log3 is S-Log3 is S-Log3 regardless of what the camera is" this is apparently not true with fs7 :D

Now lets see what software i tested this footage with, AE cc2014, AE cc2015, premiere pro cc2015, sony raw viewer, resolve.

with several different luts, ones that worked and linearized f5, f55 and fs700 footage were not able produce correct image. from the looks of it the s-log3 on fs7 was off. I have noticed this issue with wide variety of footage produced with fs7, shot on s-log. The picture seems to be little off, and now I had personal taste of how off...

There was very little i liked about with the fs7, one thing I liked about it was that it had pl-mount attached. Due this I will not look any further into this s-log3 issue.
 
Back
Top