Is the F3 worth the extra $k?

Douglas Villalba

Douglas Villalba

Well-known member
I am getting ready to start producing a low budget film this fall and I am going Sony.
I've read all the different features of both the FS100 and the F3, so I know in paper what they do different. My question is for you guys that already own or operate this cameras.
I would like to know why would you pay the $9k difference even if money is not an issue?
 
My advice would be to rent both the FS-100 and the F-3. Rent the glass you would feel appropriate to your film, Shoot some test scenes. Determine which works better for you. Both are great cameras. You are going to be limited to 8-bit HDMI out of the FS-100 while you have the option of S-Log 4:4:4 with appropriate recorder from the F-3. Which is going to work for you? I respectfully think those are among the questions to ask rather a theoretical "is it worth $9K more." I've gone through the exercise and decided that while much of what I do could very well be achieved with the FS-100 (in addition to my DSLR, GoPro's, and EX-1), the F-3 is worth the risk. Good luck in the decision and in the film. But it is only hands-on with the cameras + glass + peripherals that will really help you answer that question.

Ned Soltz
 
You could rent a fullly fullly sorted F3 kit with KiPro and sLog for a month with cooke lenses for 1k$ less than the cost of an fs100 body.
 
Thanks for your input Ned.
I should have said that S-log is not a consideration since that would add an extra $10K minimum to the equation. For that I would go for the RED. I am more interested on actual ease use on an actual shoot. I think that picture quality with their recorder or external 422 is almost identical unless you need to correct in post.
I've never rented. I usually buy and keep it until a new technology arrives. For example, I am buying a (BT) 18-85mm RED lens no matter what camera I end up buying. That way the lens will still be good for the next generation on cameras to come. That is why I do my research before buying.
 
Read Alister Chapman's comments on the F3 forum on DVInfo.net. He's tested both cameras, is a very exacting tech and holds that the picture quality of the F3 is noticeably superior. As far as actual ease on set I think there's no question that the F3 is superior. If your willing to spend on an 18-85, I think an FS100 would be a step down. It will have much less cache among producers as well.
 
There is no question that the F3 is a better camera. The question was, Is it worth the extra $10,000.00? As far as I can tell you definitely need the F3 if you need 10 bit 444.
Alister says that it shows slightly better color, but that could be that he over exposed the FS100 or the 10 bit difference on the F3.
I personally don't see a reason for the handheld design of the F3. You can't really hand hold a handheld designs without additional rigs.
I am at this point leaning toward the FS100. I posted on this thread to get the F3 owners and operator's to give me a reason to go F3.
Lenilanapi has a good point. The F3 has more "cache" with producers, but I am the producer in this case.
TimurCivan shot a short of some dancer that looked really good, but I think that it was his mastery of the art that made the difference. He could have use a HDSLR and it would have looked as good. Maybe a little less detail on the highs & lows, but still great.
I provably won't be buying anything for the next 2 weeks so I'll stay tuned to this thread and forum.
 
You can rent a PMW-F3K (with the kit lenses) for $5000 for a month. (www.lensrentals.com if not elsewhere)

Adding an external recorder like the Ki Pro Mini, and media, and Anton Bauer batteries, might be another $2000.

For less than you can buy an FS100 and a basic set of primes, you could be shooting your feature on the F3, to ProRes422 HQ.

And keep in mind, PL mount adapters for the FS100 are between $900 and $1800. The PMW-F3 comes with a PL mount native.

The 10 bit recording gives you significant room in post, and the FS100 doesn't offer 10 bit output.
 
Stephen Mick said:
The HDMI on the FS-100 worked perfectly for us all week long on the set of "Touch." I'd certainly prefer SDI, but it's far from a deal-breaker for me.
Click to expand...
HDMI does work, and can be worked with. Taylor had some complaints about the delays that were being introduced; he said by the time the cable went through the splitter, the TV Logic, and finally to the Zacuto EVF, it made everything about 1/4 second behind the actual action, which was annoying him.

It's not that HDMI doesn't work or can't be worked with, it's that it's not really the right tool for the job.
 
Barry_Green said:
HDMI does work, and can be worked with. Taylor had some complaints about the delays that were being introduced; he said by the time the cable went through the splitter, the TV Logic, and finally to the Zacuto EVF, it made everything about 1/4 second behind the actual action, which was annoying him.

It's not that HDMI doesn't work or can't be worked with, it's that it's not really the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

It may not be the "best" tool for the job, but again, we got what the director wanted. SDI is most certainly better, but HDMI is "right" if it's what the budget allows.
 
Oh, back to the original poster's question -- is the additional dollars of the F3 worth it? Definitely -- if you need what the F3 does that the FS100 doesn't. Just like the additional dollars for a BMW 6-series are certainly worth it over the 1-series. But not everybody needs that.

The FS100 is not an F3 in a cheaper package. Even if they claim the sensor is "the same", the processing behind it is not the same. Doesn't make the FS100 bad, it just doesn't make it what it isn't. Is there value and power in that additional $9,000? Of course there is. It's not like Sony is offering the exact same product for 1/3 the price and expecting that only stupid people will buy the more expensive product, after all. So, with all these situations, you have to evaluate it based on your particular needs. If you have no need for SDI or ND filters, you will never use 4:4:4 S-Log, and you don't need or want all the rest that the F3 does, then by all means the FS100 is the better product for you.

On the other hand, if you're living in a rental market where the F3 is commanding $500/day and the FS100 isn't even being asked for, and you're planning on hiring yourself out as DP-with-camera, then the F3, even though it costs more initially, would be the far better buy.

So, like in every question of "vs", it comes down to this: what do you specifically plan to use it for, what is your business plan for buying, using, and then selling the product, what is your timeframe, etc.
 
Stephen Mick said:
It may not be the "best" tool for the job, but again, we got what the director wanted. SDI is most certainly better, but HDMI is "right" if it's what the budget allows.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. But that same argument is what spawned people using DSLRs in the first place.
 
90% of my work is local TV commercials and corporate work. Most of my business competitor in this market use DSLRs for film look and the rest still use regular video cameras. Some are still using SD.
I could rent an F3 ($5,000) just for the movie, but I rather upgrade my camera for my steady stream of jobs also.
Technology has change rapidly from the 35mm adapters to DSLR and know this 2 cameras has made it affordable to upgrade to a mush better solution to the film look. The F3 at 3X the price of the FS100 is without a doubt a better camera. However, HDMI's inadequacies are not great enough for the extra $10,000. I personally use a Panasonic BT-LH80WU to monitor through component so delays are no problem. S log 444 for an extra $10,000 ($20,000 over the FS100) would be worth it if you need 10 bit 444. That market is really high budget. I wouldn't be considering the FS100 if I had those clients. :cheesy:
 
Well that's exactly the type of market analysis you need to do, to pick the right product. If you don't need the specific features that the bigger camera offers, and your clients won't pay for it, then get the one that does the job you need doing and don't look back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top