Just got a new camera - Sony F35
- Thread starter macgregor
- Start date
SJX
Veteran
Market dumbness?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-F65-Camera-Pack-/321489322562?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276
Looks like there are 2 of them for sale. I wrote them a message inquiring where the cameras came from. Have to take a risk if you want the deal of the year on a f65. Very tempting though.
macgregor
Veteran
ajhill
Member
Roadtrip!
Roadtrip!
Mac,
Local pickup in Salem, OR. You did get unlimited mileage on that rental car didn't you? Quick flight from L.A. or a day and a half by car.
I'd bring a power supply and insist on putting it thru the paces. It looks like it came to America via Russia. Interesting.
According to the owner of the camera house I was at yesterday, he sold his F65s to India! Taking a bath in the process. Imagine Bollywood coming to a screen near you in 4K!!!
Alan
Roadtrip!
Mac,
Local pickup in Salem, OR. You did get unlimited mileage on that rental car didn't you? Quick flight from L.A. or a day and a half by car.
I'd bring a power supply and insist on putting it thru the paces. It looks like it came to America via Russia. Interesting.
According to the owner of the camera house I was at yesterday, he sold his F65s to India! Taking a bath in the process. Imagine Bollywood coming to a screen near you in 4K!!!
Alan
SJX
Veteran
2 of them and they come from Europe? Guys really check serials. I remember seeing 2 F65 were stolen in Europe. I think it was UK site. Check for sure.
But what you guys see in F65? Just because 4K? F35 looks much better and more like film. I think F65 is a fatter, heavier and more power hungry F35 which don't look as good.
F65 only records 4K RAW which is overkill. All F5 guys are dying for compressed 4K because clients don't want big files. Many saying 1080 from F35 is sharper than from F5 and F55. F65 bit more dynamic range and 4K. But only works with SR-R4 and sends no 4K out, not even for 4k monitor, only records RAW, heavier, more power hungry, CMOS, louder and again you locked to sony codecs. I has more features but F5 and F55 also have more features and how many F35 owners want them?
You think F65 is easier sell to clients than F35? Is also sony and unknown. They want Alexa anyway or more F55 than F65.
F65 don't look like film like F35. I saw Lucy and was thinking all time, this would look much better with F35. It is only sharp. No mojo.
SJX
Veteran
Your F35 was 10006. Don't see your point?
JMtheDP
Veteran
SJX
You're entitled to your opinion, but please fact check. The F65 can record in:
"8K" 16-bit Linear RAW @ either 3:1 or 6:1 (Lite) Compression
OR
1920x1080P 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 12 or 10-bit at the same bit-rates as the HDCAM SR format (exact same codec) - 880mbps, 440mbps and 220mbps (options for colour sampling and bit depth vary with bit rate)
I am one of the ones who said the F35 is sharper than the F5/55 at 1080P. The F65 should be at least as good because it has 2x as many pixels as the F5/55.
As for the look of films, this is highly personal. We have all discussed films shot on Sony CineAlta cameras that look like garbage and films that look great. Having seen the trailer for LUCY, I would agree that it doesn't look good at all.
However, I think Oblivion (F65) looked absolutely brilliant. Real Steel (F35) looked amazing, but Captain America (Genesis) looked pretty bad.
Plus, there are quite a few people who sometimes LIKE an under-dog. I am an owner-operator and 95% of all stuff I shoot I supply the camera for. That means I get to choose what camera I want. I don't want an ALEXA because I don't see any advantage over the F35 for most things.
I am actually moving more for the frame-rate flexibility of the F65 than the resolution. However, I am hearing more and more about jobs the ALEXA is losing out on simply because it isn't 4K - I had an opportunity where I was financially solvent enough to fund the upgrade and I have done so.
You're more than welcome to your opinion, but please do check some of your facts. I still think the F35 is a superb camera, for the next 24 hours it is still going to be the best camera I ever owned and that may not change when my F65 arrives.. who knows.
JMtheDP
Veteran
My point is the camera was a very early one. It will therefore have an interesting history - good or bad. It is worth finding it out.
People should not be put off automatically by such a serial number, because my experience with 006 has been very good, but some people who find these threads if they are looking at those cameras may not know the way Sony do their serials.
SJX
Veteran
Exactly. This is my point. Serials don't matter.
SJX
Veteran
James I thought it was blatantly clear I was talking of 4K. No HD. This is F35 board and we talk this often. F65 is only RAW FOR 4K.
No it looks very good. But not like film like F35 and no mojo like F35.
Yes but not like film and no mojo. Very sharp but mojo?
Bad? Better than any HD camera I see. Can you say what is film and what is genesis without wikipedia?
Alexa losing job for 4k must be low end work. Deakins and nobody care for this.
What facts? I was right. F65 is RAW only WITH 4K. Why talk HD? F35 is already best in HD. No point.
It will not change James. 3 films made with F65. F65 has more features, F55 has more features, F35 looks best.
JMtheDP
Veteran
Trying to veer back onto topic (the F35) with Captain America. I didn't really enjoy the look of the film because the whole thing looked under-exposed, very washed out and very grey. I understand the artistic reasoning but for me it felt like too much. And there was a lot of open shutter shots, which is a personal bugbear of mine. I know Captain America was 3D, which may have a little to do with it, as the mirror rigs sap your light, but I can't recall if they shot in 3D or post-converted.
I don't claim to be able to spot what camera a film was shot on, I believe the differences (once graded) are quite minimal, providing you've lit with the correct format in mind. For example, I did not realise quite how much of Need For Speed was C500 - I was very impressed that it was basically all the night stuff (although not surprised a lot was ALEXA).
I believe a lot of TV work is where the ALEXA is getting replaced by the F55. The ALEXA is still (and with good reason) a mainstream camera, but an F55 is much cheaper to rent, has on-board (sort of) RAW and 4K, plus I think TV guys are more worried about delivering a 4K picture.
What I think was great about the F35, and that era of cameras, was their were built to the same prices as an old film camera (£100K+), the same build quality and they of course had so much processing built in. What most of us love about the F35 is the way it handles colours, skintones, etc... This is the result of Sony's endless tweaking, experience, and the fact the camera does it all internally.
With ANY RAW camera - RED, F65, F55 RAW, etc... so much of this processing is left until afterwards. That means you could potentially do it better than the camera could, but I find the reality of low-budget filmmaking is there are far more opportunities to screw things up.
For example, with RED there are about four versions of REDCOLOR I think, many gammas, with the F65/55/5 there are three different log/gamma combinations, but with the F35 there was only one. Okay, there were hypergammas, etc... but I am ignoring those because anyone shooting F35 for features would only really ever choose S-Log I think.
Even Sony kinda admitted that a CCD was still better than a CMOS, but they said they can't charge $200K for a camera anymore, and everyone wants more frame rates in their main camera. That screws CCDs basically - the F35/Genesis was the only serious CCD camera I can think of that did more than 30P. It was, and is, an amazing bit of tech. We're not going to see one again, and that makes me very sad. Unfortunately, unlike cars, I don't think it will ever come "back in fashion", as much as I would love that to happen.
I don't claim to be able to spot what camera a film was shot on, I believe the differences (once graded) are quite minimal, providing you've lit with the correct format in mind. For example, I did not realise quite how much of Need For Speed was C500 - I was very impressed that it was basically all the night stuff (although not surprised a lot was ALEXA).
I believe a lot of TV work is where the ALEXA is getting replaced by the F55. The ALEXA is still (and with good reason) a mainstream camera, but an F55 is much cheaper to rent, has on-board (sort of) RAW and 4K, plus I think TV guys are more worried about delivering a 4K picture.
What I think was great about the F35, and that era of cameras, was their were built to the same prices as an old film camera (£100K+), the same build quality and they of course had so much processing built in. What most of us love about the F35 is the way it handles colours, skintones, etc... This is the result of Sony's endless tweaking, experience, and the fact the camera does it all internally.
With ANY RAW camera - RED, F65, F55 RAW, etc... so much of this processing is left until afterwards. That means you could potentially do it better than the camera could, but I find the reality of low-budget filmmaking is there are far more opportunities to screw things up.
For example, with RED there are about four versions of REDCOLOR I think, many gammas, with the F65/55/5 there are three different log/gamma combinations, but with the F35 there was only one. Okay, there were hypergammas, etc... but I am ignoring those because anyone shooting F35 for features would only really ever choose S-Log I think.
Even Sony kinda admitted that a CCD was still better than a CMOS, but they said they can't charge $200K for a camera anymore, and everyone wants more frame rates in their main camera. That screws CCDs basically - the F35/Genesis was the only serious CCD camera I can think of that did more than 30P. It was, and is, an amazing bit of tech. We're not going to see one again, and that makes me very sad. Unfortunately, unlike cars, I don't think it will ever come "back in fashion", as much as I would love that to happen.
macgregor
Veteran
Damn it. I was wishing the A7s would replace the F35, but the damn thing keeps beating anything else I put against...
GH4 +3 2/3 N - 6 2/3 11 1/3 stops usable +3 2/3 N - 5 2/3 10 ⅓ stops
A7s Slog +5 2/3 N - 5 1/3 12 stops usable +5 2/3 N - 4 1/3 11 stops
F35 +7 N -6 1/3 14 1/3 stops usable +6 1/3 N -5 12 1/3 stops
GH4 +3 2/3 N - 6 2/3 11 1/3 stops usable +3 2/3 N - 5 2/3 10 ⅓ stops
A7s Slog +5 2/3 N - 5 1/3 12 stops usable +5 2/3 N - 4 1/3 11 stops
F35 +7 N -6 1/3 14 1/3 stops usable +6 1/3 N -5 12 1/3 stops
SJX
Veteran
Mac you crazy man!:laugh: After all this time still think you find something that can beat F35?
F35 eat F65 and Alexa and then eat F55 for dessert. F35 smokes all.:violent5:
How a7s will beat it?
You know what we should do?
Make a hot rod F35 group buy. Yachacha the mad scientist make lighter smaller body and Viddovation the evil genius crack code so SR-R1 talk to camera and we get variable frame rate with SR-R1. Then we find hacker who likes filmic images make pool and buy him F35 body so he can hack it and get 2K that sony promise. He can keep F35 as payment. :thumbsup:
Ha! Full recording options in 2K F35! :kali:
I'm happy camper for life. F35 untouchable now like this impossible to touch forever. :2vrolijk_08::2vrolijk_08::2vrolijk_08:
Last edited:
mlysbakken
Well-known member
Enthusiasm is great, but lets not get into fanboyism. Different projects call for different aesthetics and features, and personally I would never tell anybody that my camera was better than an Alexa or an F65. Sometimes it is, in my eyes, but other times it isn't. I often prefer its look over the competitors, but I also often dream about the other cameras' features and sensitivity. It also happens that the look of Red or even C300 fits the tone of a project better. It's just a tool.
Congrats to James, I'm sure the F65 will give you a lot of joy, and I've seen it do some truly amazing things! Can't wait to see some footage!
Congrats to James, I'm sure the F65 will give you a lot of joy, and I've seen it do some truly amazing things! Can't wait to see some footage!
Last edited:
