Is the Alexa better than the F35?

[JMtheDP]

SJX is making a scrapbook

Oh, and for what it is worth - I still stand by all of my above quotes despite the fact I have moved to the F65 now.

Also, regarding that Zacuto test, I remember they did one DR test (I think this one) at 800 ISO for every camera, which is not exactly a fair test.

 

[Joncarr]

I'm by no means "pissed off" and your numbers are accurate, however, your interpretation of them is a bit broad for my taste, and they come with certain caveats.

In particular I find your phrase "the F35 does not look like film anymore" to be poorly chosen.

I disagree, the f35 looks cinematic. Well it better look cinematic for a price tag of 250k in 2005. But it does not look like film. Plain and simple. It does not have the same dynamic range, nor resolution to compete against film. That plays a huge role in making it look like what it's replacing. You can argue all you want that "x" movie looked like film. But give the DP and Gaffer, and art department some credit. A camera is just a tool, there's no "film mojo" in the f35. Just in the person or people behind the camera. Yes, It was the best digital camera “film” replacement from 05-08. But its now 2014, and its passed by better, faster, smaller cameras. Which is why it goes for so cheap on the used market. If it was not considered outdated technology it would hold more value then it does now. From 250k new to 10k resale value. Tough break to the original owners right?

It seems to me the F35 either looks like film or it doesn't. Personally, I suspect if you took well shot Color Kodak 35mm footage and projected it next to well shot F35 footage next to well shoot Alexa footage I doubt the layperson (non-industry) would be able to clearly delineate between them, nor consistently pick either the Alexa or film as superior to the F35.

Sure if you shoot Film, ALEXA, F35, hell… lets throw a RED in too. You wouldn’t be able to tell much of a difference on a HD monitor or projection. But I would blame HD's REC709 in evening the odds for all the cameras. You will see the difference at 4k REC2020. Because 4k is the digital standard made by Kodak. There’s a reason why we been scanning 35mm negatives/prints at 4k since the early 90’s. Now we're at 6k scan to 4k out. Cause we need the range, resolution, color.

If the same test was given to Camera Operators and DPs, I suspect there would still be a number or folks who fail to identify and either guess wrong or admit they don't know.

Once again, HD yes. 4k well, If fan boys get off their high horse they will see the flaws of each camera compared to film. And the ones willing to admit the flaws of film.

I'm not going to assert that the F35 is better on paper. It's not - but it's not bad either, and right now it's far more affordable than RED or Alexa.

Yes, I agree, you could buy a used f35 for the price of a scarlet body. My question is how do you sell a 9 year old HD camera to a client in a ALEXA and RED world? I haven’t been asked about shooting the f35 since 09. The REDone MX kind of finished the f35 digital dominance off. Yes, you can easily say a lot of ASC DP’s still shoot on the f35. Sure why not? If someone is comfortable or too afraid to move on, or still got that fan boy for the product, let them. You can still make very cinematic movies from the f35.

As for the "technology of 2005" and the "technology of 2010" one should keep in mind that the F35 sensor is the pinnacle of CCD technology - a mature technology, while CMOS technology is far newer overall, and is still developing and improving.

Pinnacle of CCD technology? Sure, But bare in mind. CMOS has surpassed it years ago. CCD technology has pretty much been abandoned, its sad but its true. So the f35 sensor will still be on top of the CCD, until one day some company decides, maybe we should go back to CCD. Also CMOS is actually the same age of CCD as they both been in development since the late 60’s. And like you said, if CCD is mature, and CMOS is still developing and improving. Well I’ll take the technology people are still working to improve, cause well. Why fight technology advancements?

As for dynamic range - yes, the F35 is 11.3 stops, with quite a bit hidden in the highlights.

Sure...

As far as what "film" looks like, and the specs offered in terms of resolution and stops... well, that really depends on the film stock, doesn't it? So perhaps you meant "[modern Super35mm motion picture] film [stocks]." And not all material is trying to look like a modern film stock. In fact, sometimes you want to grade a film stock that isn't available anymore. And as for resolution, the F35 only outputs 1080p, but it's probably the sharpest 1080p of any camera at all, because the sensor is optimized for that resolution. There's no binning or line-skipping or resizing to speak of. So, it hardly looks worse than the Alexa or RED downsampled to 1080.

Vision 2, which was the film stocks for the f35 to replace digitally. Still had 14 stops of dynamic range. and was between 3.2k and 3.7k resolution (depending on the stock). So, yea, did not match then, does not match now. IT IS A CINEMATIC CAMERA THOUGH. Just not a film replacement, never was, never will be. The only reason Panavision went with the f35 was a business decision for a digital option for a changing industry. Could you imagine if they waited 2 years, and signed up with RED instead?

If you have the money for an Alexa it's an exceptional piece of kit. Just make sure you have the clients who will foot the bill.

Yes, I have the money for a ALEXA, but I choose RED. But if client wants ALEXA, film, RED etc. And if I agree that camera is right for the job, sure lets shoot something cinematic.

 

[niki]

I disagree, the f35 looks cinematic. Well it better look cinematic for a price tag of 250k in 2005. But it does not look like film. Plain and simple. It does not have the same dynamic range, nor resolution to compete against film. That plays a huge role in making it look like what it's replacing. You can argue all you want that "x" movie looked like film. But give the DP and Gaffer, and art department some credit. A camera is just a tool, there's no "film mojo" in the f35. Just in the person or people behind the camera. Yes, It was the best digital camera “film” replacement from 05-08. But its now 2014, and its passed by better, faster, smaller cameras. Which is why it goes for so cheap on the used market. If it was not considered outdated technology it would hold more value then it does now. From 250k new to 10k resale value. Tough break to the original owners right?



Sure if you shoot Film, ALEXA, F35, hell… lets throw a RED in too. You wouldn’t be able to tell much of a difference on a HD monitor or projection. But I would blame HD's REC709 in evening the odds for all the cameras. You will see the difference at 4k REC2020. Because 4k is the digital standard made by Kodak. There’s a reason why we been scanning 35mm negatives/prints at 4k since the early 90’s. Now we're at 6k scan to 4k out. Cause we need the range, resolution, color.




Once again, HD yes. 4k well, If fan boys get off their high horse they will see the flaws of each camera compared to film. And the ones willing to admit the flaws of film.




Yes, I agree, you could buy a used f35 for the price of a scarlet body. My question is how do you sell a 9 year old HD camera to a client in a ALEXA and RED world? I haven’t been asked about shooting the f35 since 09. The REDone MX kind of finished the f35 digital dominance off. Yes, you can easily say a lot of ASC DP’s still shoot on the f35. Sure why not? If someone is comfortable or too afraid to move on, or still got that fan boy for the product, let them. You can still make very cinematic movies from the f35.



Pinnacle of CCD technology? Sure, But bare in mind. CMOS has surpassed it years ago. CCD technology has pretty much been abandoned, its sad but its true. So the f35 sensor will still be on top of the CCD, until one day some company decides, maybe we should go back to CCD. Also CMOS is actually the same age of CCD as they both been in development since the late 60’s. And like you said, if CCD is mature, and CMOS is still developing and improving. Well I’ll take the technology people are still working to improve, cause well. Why fight technology advancements?


Sure...



Vision 2, which was the film stocks for the f35 to replace digitally. Still had 14 stops of dynamic range. and was between 3.2k and 3.7k resolution (depending on the stock). So, yea, did not match then, does not match now. IT IS A CINEMATIC CAMERA THOUGH. Just not a film replacement, never was, never will be. The only reason Panavision went with the f35 was a business decision for a digital option for a changing industry. Could you imagine if they waited 2 years, and signed up with RED instead?


Yes, I have the money for a ALEXA, but I choose RED. But if client wants ALEXA, film, RED etc. And if I agree that camera is right for the job, sure lets shoot something cinematic.

+1

my choices

kodak film stunning

Alexa smooth

f35 for the price nice…(but resale???)

 

[Viddovation]

Joncarr,

I stand by what I wrote. Most particularly, I stand by the argument that non-industry people watching content for enjoyment won't know, tell, or care about the difference between all of these high end cameras under most shooting conditions. You can always construct a specialty shooting condition under which certain technology will out perform others very noticeably, but that's always going to be the case.

As for your clients not asking for the F35 - I absolutely beleive you. But we don't all have the same clients, and not all of our clients have the same budgets. If your client can afford to rent or pay for an Alexa Studio, I doubt they can be sold on the F35, regardless of any merits the F35 may have. If the F35 still cost $250 I would most definitely agree it was overpriced for the current market. But the fact that as owner operators we can now buy them for under $10k, means they can be used practically on sets that can't reasonably afford an Alexa, F65, or Dragon on set - and can provide image quality that is competitive for end-viewers (non industry! watching for content! not pixels!)

Some of us have clients who demand we use certain technologies. Others of us have clients who simply demand results. The F35 is better suited to low budgets demanding results. I hardly expect to see the F35 on multi-million dollar features, but it's pefectly usable for smaller content that owner operators are likely to book.

Further, I'll add the resume argument. I can write my resume on paper any number of ways - handwritten, with a type writer, with a dot matrix printer, with an inkjet printer, with a laser printer, heck - there's even a wax printer out there. And if it's done with a computer, I can use any number of operating systems and software packages to generate the data to be printed. If I submit a handwritten or typewriter written resume - or an old dot matrix printed resume - there's some chance my resume will be discarded because I looked unprofessional. But I argue that for most jobs whether I write my resume on a Windows 95 machine with MS Word using an inkjet printer from 1996 or on a 2014 Mac Pro with 64GB RAM and a state of the art color laser printer will make absolutely no difference in whether I get the job. At some point the technology itself becomes invisible when it does not distract or detract the viewer from the content. In the case of a resume, if printed at sufficient quality the viewer will focus on the written content - the merits of my past work - instead of on the nature of the paper and printing which is used to provide the content.

All we're talking about here are tools. Consumers can see the difference between their handy cam and our professional work, but asking them to distinguish between our professional cameras on the digital cinema level??? They can neither tell nor care.

 

[mlysbakken]

I believe it's healthy with some critical voices here, and I see no point in denying that the F35 is in many ways outdated. Fanboyism is dangerous because it destroys credibility. With that being said, understand that we are talking look, not numbers or workflow; and I don't think I'm alone in vastly preferring the image of the F35 over most newer digital cameras - most notably the Red MX. Color is key in my opinion, and only the Alexa can compete with the gamut of the older CCD cameras. You appear to snuff at the notion of 11.3 stops DR being enough, but when 7 of those stops are in the highlights, the resulting image is in my opinion more than cinematic enough.

As mentioned, it's just a tool. I don't think we'll get anything good out of bashing the cameras of others (although I'll admit to bashing the MX a bit above). I look at them as stocks: Fuji vs Kodak. You would be a fool to say that one is inherently better than the other, but I'd also expect you to have personal favourites.

 

[JMtheDP]

I only ever feel that the choice of camera is compromised when it is a choice taken out of my hands.

 

[SJX]

Sorry guys I tried to ignore the troll job. When I read this I knew was a troll job and flaming:

I know this will piss a lot of die hard f35 people off, but the f35 does not look like film anymore.

But this guy leaves red forum to come here troll us. I must speak my mind. But I promise I wont feed the troll anymore after this.

I disagree, the f35 looks cinematic.

You know what they say about opinions.

But I'm sure Real Steel, Tron Legacy or Once Upon a Time in Anatolya looks more cinematic than anything you shot on your red.

Well it better look cinematic for a price tag of 250k in 2005. But it does not look like film. Plain and simple. It does not have the same dynamic range, nor resolution to compete against film.

Red has all this and still can't compete with film. More movies used film this year than red.

A camera is just a tool, there's no "film mojo" in the f35. Just in the person or people behind the camera.

So why red doesn't look like film? All persons behind red movies don't know what they do?

Yes, It was the best digital camera “film” replacement from 05-08.

F35 came out end of 2008. Know what you talking about?

But its now 2014, and its passed by better, faster, smaller cameras.

Passed by? Why F35 has better skins than red then? Better skins than F55 then? They are newer.

Yes, I agree, you could buy a used f35 for the price of a scarlet body. My question is how do you sell a 9 year old HD camera to a client in a ALEXA and RED world?

It's alexa world! Not alexa and red world. It's alexa world. Wake up. Red is only low budget or when need small size or 3D because of again size and a handful of people. Alexa dominates! See how many movies shot alexa this year and how many red. How many tv shows and how many cinematography nominations. It's alexa world!

The REDone MX kind of finished the f35 digital dominance off.

Red one also going for very cheap now. Have many problems and is very hard to use. F35 easier and better camera. Many F35 users here also have red ones and epics and say the prefer F35 and some even sold their red after buying F35.

Yes, you can easily say a lot of ASC DP’s still shoot on the f35. Sure why not? If someone is comfortable or too afraid to move on,

Afraid to move on? Sorry your post stink of bias. What are you doing here?

or still got that fan boy for the product, let them.

People have to be fan boy to keep using F35? They can't use because they like it better? You are trolling.

Pinnacle of CCD technology? Sure, But bare in mind. CMOS has surpassed it years ago.

No! Sony said CCD is still better but too expensive.

So the f35 sensor will still be on top of the CCD, until one day some company decides, maybe we should go back to CCD.

This would be great.

Vision 2, which was the film stocks for the f35 to replace digitally. Still had 14 stops of dynamic range. and was between 3.2k and 3.7k resolution (depending on the stock). So, yea, did not match then, does not match now. IT IS A CINEMATIC CAMERA THOUGH.

So it is cinematic or not? Decide how you want to troll.

Just not a film replacement, never was, never will be.

No digital camera is film replacement in reality. But we think F35 is closest in look. But no red or alexa or none replaces film 100%.

Yes, I have the money for a ALEXA, but I choose RED.

So now it comes out. I see. Explains a lot.

But if client wants ALEXA, film, RED etc. And if I agree that camera is right for the job, sure lets shoot something cinematic.

I think everybody here would do same. Your point?

 

[JMtheDP]

Don't let this forum become like the RED one... I think Jon has many valid points, as do several others. It is very difficult to separate fact and opinion when talking about these things sometimes!

It is acceptable to have other people not agree with you, just saying. Doesn't always make them wrong. And many of us work in different countries, budgets, environments, with many different requirements...

 

[Joncarr]

Sorry guys I tried to ignore the troll job. When I read this I knew was a troll job and flaming:




But this guy leaves red forum to come here troll us. I must speak my mind. But I promise I wont feed the troll anymore after this.




You know what they say about opinions.

But I'm sure Real Steel, Tron Legacy or Once Upon a Time in Anatolya looks more cinematic than anything you shot on your red.




Red has all this and still can't compete with film. More movies used film this year than red.



So why red doesn't look like film? All persons behind red movies don't know what they do?




F35 came out end of 2008. Know what you talking about?



Passed by? Why F35 has better skins than red then? Better skins than F55 then? They are newer.





It's alexa world! Not alexa and red world. It's alexa world. Wake up. Red is only low budget or when need small size or 3D because of again size and a handful of people. Alexa dominates! See how many movies shot alexa this year and how many red. How many tv shows and how many cinematography nominations. It's alexa world!

Red one also going for very cheap now. Have many problems and is very hard to use. F35 easier and better camera. Many F35 users here also have red ones and epics and say the prefer F35 and some even sold their red after buying F35.

Afraid to move on? Sorry your post stink of bias. What are you doing here?

People have to be fan boy to keep using F35? They can't use because they like it better? You are trolling.





No! Sony said CCD is still better but too expensive.


This would be great.


So it is cinematic or not? Decide how you want to troll.

No digital camera is film replacement in reality. But we think F35 is closest in look. But no red or alexa or none replaces film 100%.




So now it comes out. I see. Explains a lot.


I think everybody here would do same. Your point?

wow, someone can't take criticism.... Your best attempt is to call me a troll, and make RED references? Sorry fan boy, facts are facts. ALEXA is better then f35. And the F35 is still a great cinematic camera. Like I said. I'm not saying it can't make great images, but it has been surpassed. And if the f35 didn't come out till 2008, how was Apocalypto made in 05, and released in 06? Was shot on a Genesis, which is a f35 with panavision badging.... I'm not gonna reply anymore to this thread so feel free to be the dick of the internet, cause you seem to not want to have a intelligent argument unless people agree with you.

 

[Viddovation]

wow, someone can't take criticism.... Your best attempt is to call me a troll, and make RED references? Sorry fan boy, facts are facts. ALEXA is better then f35. And the F35 is still a great cinematic camera. Like I said. I'm not saying it can't make great images, but it has been surpassed. And if the f35 didn't come out till 2008, how was Apocalypto made in 05, and released in 06? Was shot on a Genesis, which is a f35 with panavision badging.... I'm not gonna reply anymore to this thread so feel free to be the dick of the internet, cause you seem to not want to have a intelligent argument unless people agree with you.

Joncarr,

By your logic quoted above I should consider the Red EPIC-MX to be the same as the Red One MX, as they use the same sensor. For that matter, I should consider the Sony PMW-F3 and the Sony FS100 the same as well, as they share a sensor. But perhaps we can agree that a camera is not merely it's sensor, but also the processing behind the sensor, and in that manner the Red EPIC surpasses the Red One MX, the PMW-F3 surpasses the FS100 and the Sony F35 surpasses the Panavision Genesis.

The "facts" that you quote are conditional. For instance, all of the RED cameras have a rolling shutter. If I'm shooting content with strobe flashes or other quick pulses of light, vibration, or quick motion, the F35 may perform superiorly to the Red (and most Alexas) without the need for expensive accessories or expensive alterations in lighting technique. Likewise, resolution is not always your friend. Resolution may be very desirable when shooting landscapes, but I've seen many a DP shooting in 4k only to use plenty of resolution destroying filtration as soon as they have a close-up of talent. Resolution is not your friend when trying to hide wrinkles and blemishes of skin.

If you wish to quote hard numbers, I'm happy to agree with you, but when you wish to reduce your argument to "A is better than B" I find it simplified to the point of fallacy and inaccuracy. It may be better, depending on the goal.

Regardless, if you prefer to shoot RED, I have no complaints. I will personally credit Jim Jannard with the following - he was offended by the outrageous prices of digital cinema cameras like the Genesis and F35, with their quarter million dollar prices tags, so he set out and made a competitive digital cinema camera available for under $20k. The Red One and it's successors became so popular and proliferated to such an extent that I was able to buy one of the very cameras that motivated Jim in the first place for a mere $5.5k. I absolutely give Jim Jannard the credit for making digital cinema affordable. I just chose to buy the camera he rendered obsolete because I beleive in the image I get from it.

But please understand - this is my owner/operator camera. It's the camera I love. It's not unlike owning a vintage car. I highly doubt you can favorably compare vintage car specs like miles to the gallon or emissions to a new car - but there's a certain feel and a certain rumble, an asethetic and a pleasure that the new car simply can't duplicate.

So please, don't buy an F35 to compare it directly to new cameras, and don't buy it to impress clients, and don't buy it to turn a profit on appreciation - buy it because you want the look. And if the client wants a different look, humor them. Rent the camera they want, and bill them for it. Then go shoot your personal and small client stuff on the F35.

The people who sit in the audience will still think it looks great.

 

[TheDingo]

...On the weekend I saw Michael Dowse's "The F Word" ( also known as "What If" ) which was lensed by Rogier Stoffers, and I thought it was one of the ugliest looking films I've seen in a long time. When I checked IMDB I was pretty shocked to see that it had been shot with an Alexa, as the overall look of the film was so poor. I am certain this horrible look had nothing to do with the Alexa, but rather was the result of bad post-production work.

 

[JMtheDP]

Likewise if you watch "Sabotage" - the recent Arnie flick - the whole think looks like it has been shot on a very typical "video" camera. I too was shocked to find that was ALEXA - I was expecting it to be something completely different.

 

[TheDingo]

Likewise if you watch "Sabotage" - the recent Arnie flick - the whole think looks like it has been shot on a very typical "video" camera. I too was shocked to find that was ALEXA - I was expecting it to be something completely different.

That's Bruce McCleery's work, which makes no sense given his track record...

 

[JMtheDP]

I thought Captain America looked awful, but I love most of Shelly Johnson's work. The Expendables 2 also looked weird in places, but impossible to tell whether that is the DoP or post's doing.

Dante Spinotti did "The Last of the Mohicans", "Heat" and later "Public Enemies"

There will be plenty of reasons behind these radical changes in look/quality - we may never know what they are. But it never fails to frustrate me when I see a shot on a $100m movie that I know I would be told to redo on a $150k film.

 

[Surf it Mike]

Ah the flames of fanboy-ism are stoked again.

Fact.....Alexa is a great camera , F65 a great camera , Red Dragon a great camera. If you can't make great images from any of these than you shouldn't be working in the industry.

Fact each of these camera has strengths and weaknesses. I seem to remember a discussion of how all 3 where used on "Lucy" and just why would that be ?

Anyway where does this leave the F35. Fact it is old tech no amount of ranting can change that . That's why people can afford to buy/own them for under 10K.

Imo. with the majority of world TV still broadcasting SD, if your lucky HD, this is the market F35 can still play in. Great image that can be had for similar costs to a new Fs700 what's not to like. I was really surprised to read that a current Aussie international TV hit "Miss Fischer Murder mysteries" was shot on the venerable Sony SRW 9000PL and I thought it was Alexa. So the analogy to vintage cars and the F35 is very apt , yes it may be old under the hood but it still can look wonderful at times. Just don't expect to see it on set that often as the 3 camera's listed above.

And no amount of fanboyism can change that.

 

[SJX]

Don't let this forum become like the RED one...

So ask for redusers not come here and behave like they do in red forum. This is F35 forum. I just took the posting to his level.

I think Jon has many valid points, as do several others.

This is valid point for you? >

Yes, you can easily say a lot of ASC DP’s still shoot on the f35. Sure why not? If someone is comfortable or too afraid to move on, or still got that fan boy for the product, let them.

You have to be fan boy to use F35 today? Have to be afraid to move on? This line looks like baiting. If not trolling then total nonsense.

He comes here and start saying his opinion like is fact and criticize us for having our own opinion? This is valid point?

But he not even know straight facts. F35 before 2008? Genesis the same as F35? CMOS passed CCD years ago? F35 is totally surpassed? F35 has global shutter. Alexa not, red not without contraption, F5 not etc. This is just one thing. We all know what F35 has of better. If he doesn't he should research before talking.

 

[JMtheDP]

^^ He (surf it mike) speaketh the truth

I recently heard a guy dismiss the AJA Cion because it will have "only 12 stops" of DR.

I can remember dreaming about having that much dynamic range to play with. People are being spoiled I think.... and increasingly blaming problems on tech, when the tech is now fantastic across all budgets.

 

[SJX]

wow, someone can't take criticism.... Your best attempt is to call me a troll, and make RED references? Sorry fan boy, facts are facts. ALEXA is better then f35. And the F35 is still a great cinematic camera. Like I said. I'm not saying it can't make great images, but it has been surpassed. And if the f35 didn't come out till 2008, how was Apocalypto made in 05, and released in 06? Was shot on a Genesis, which is a f35 with panavision badging.... I'm not gonna reply anymore to this thread so feel free to be the dick of the internet, cause you seem to not want to have a intelligent argument unless people agree with you.

Criticism is ok as long as facts are right and wording is fair. You call people who still use F35 fan boy and I'm the dick?

Get facts straight. F35 only has same sensor as genesis. Rest is different. Genesis is only 10 bit and F35 is 12 bit for example. F35 is newer and improved.

Facts? Alexa is totally better than F35? So why alexa have rolling shutter? Why sensor is lower resolution than F35? There is much more. Research before talking!


Yes don't reply. Stay on reduser. We don't go to reduser to call you fan boy and spread wrong "facts".

 

[SJX]

...On the weekend I saw Michael Dowse's "The F Word" ( also known as "What If" ) which was lensed by Rogier Stoffers, and I thought it was one of the ugliest looking films I've seen in a long time. When I checked IMDB I was pretty shocked to see that it had been shot with an Alexa, as the overall look of the film was so poor. I am certain this horrible look had nothing to do with the Alexa, but rather was the result of bad post-production work.

Likewise if you watch "Sabotage" - the recent Arnie flick - the whole think looks like it has been shot on a very typical "video" camera. I too was shocked to find that was ALEXA - I was expecting it to be something completely different.

Yes I think all cameras have stinkers. Red, alexa, F35, F65. Maybe DP was sleeping?

 

[Viddovation]

Let's be clear on one thing - no matter how good you think the F35 is, there are a very limited number of them in existence. By some accounts, under 250 world wide. I expect that means that even if you include SRW9000-PL cameras the count would be well under 500 total. With numbers like these, and with very few if any F35 cameras still in the hands of large rental houses, you simply cannot expect to see them showing up on large productions going forward, nor can you expect that most DPs will shoot with the F35. It will be limited primarily to a small number of owner operators.

With this in mind, it's difficult for us to expect those who haven't shot the F35 to truly understand it's appeal, when the marketing for the newer cameras puts the paper specs of the F35 to shame. And those who invest in a $40k+ Dragon or a $60k+ Alexa are bound to find reasons to validate the expense they put into their investment.

Troll or not, accurate or not, there's not much point in arguing with those who have seen the numbers, seen the finished footage, and who are still adamant the F35 is outmoded. I do make a point to correct such persons when their facts are incorrect, but ultimately it's a subjective matter, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Further, I would like to suggest that questions posed as "Is A better than B" are typically over broad, and really just encourage the sort of fanboyism and subjective preferences that are not terribly useful. I think, going forward, it would be far better if such questions were posed in a more specific manner, ie. "When shooting with strobes, which camera performs best?" or "When shooting landscapes for threatical project, which camera provides the sharpest results?" or "When shooting tight patterns such as plaid, which camera - EPIC, Alexa, F35 - provides the best image with the least moire for a 1080p finished output?"

Broad questions encourage broad debate, and I don't think they're terribly helpful.