Just got a new camera - Sony F35

It´s not the tool, it´s the artist. Everyone gets it. Has been beaten to death since this forum started.
This whole thread was about high-end DIYing.
A camera, formerly out of reach to own for anyone here, suddenly becomes a viable option for the indy filmmaker or the pro videoproducer.
Nikon/still lenses are as part of the equation, as a cheap recording solution, a (comparable) cheap EVF and other cheaper 3rd party camera accessories.
Embrace or walk away, as simple as that.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Well, all of them are in my price range and at the moment I'm getting none. ;)
I was close to pulling the trigger on a F35 but I pulled back for several reasons.
Click to expand...

With all due respect (and perhaps a little more than due) I find it a little puzzling that you are continuing to post in volume in a thread about a camera which you don't own and evidently have no intention of owning. Here is a 4 year old A-list camera that sold for $150K plus that you can now own for < $10K, and it looks stunning. Just the fact that a camera like this has devalued to this extent in this amount of time should be a wakeup call to a lot of people "investing" in new cameras today, but while the $10-15K it might take to get one of these into workable kit isn't chump change its hard to ignore the comparisons. Personally I'd be all over this if the form factor was a little smaller, I can handle the peripherals I would need to upgrade but its right at the edge of my fluid head sweetspot and I still have one bad shoulder from tossing HDcams around for 5 years.
 
Last edited:
Please don't pay much attention to Adamseboj, he is by all definitions, a troll. I picture him as a 22 year old kid who has studied a lot about specs like 4:4:4 being the holy grail and how Master Primes are the best lenses that everyone uses in Hollywood.

As someone who has shot a lot with both Cooke S4 lenses, Zeiss Ultra Primes and Nikon AIS lenses from the 70s on cameras from the Arri Alexa all the way to an Arri 435 film camera, I can tell you Adam, still glass can not only be optically superior, but in some ways actually better to use on newer cameras. In that there is something also clinical about throwing on a Zeiss Ultra Prime onto an Arri Alexa or even the Cooke S4 onto the Alexa.

And that the hottest lenses right now are older ones, trying to take the digital edge off.

And as Mac said, until recently, most "Hollywood" digital productions were recordering to HDCAM, which is 4:1:0 (or something like that) 8-bit, or dvcpro hd which is 4:2:2 8-bit 100mbps.

The new codecs smoke it all out of the water.

There are more than specs again as Mac said.

Darn, look at me, having the need to reply to a troll.

And Adam, overall I think you write some really excellent posts and get people thinking in a good way. As you get older, you'll learn to write statements that don't get people's feathers so ruffled. In that, I don't think you are deliberatly trying to be a troll. You're just like that annoying kid in high school who thinks he's always right all the time, but doesn't have any real-world experience.
 
Oh, brother. We knew it would end here: opinions offered-up as facts, pissing matches over preferences, and my thing is bigger than yours.
The lens thing has been beaten to death--move on over to RedForum and you can quench your thirst for fanboy fanaticisms and unilateral rejections based upon nothing but net-trolling.

Eddavid, careful about blanket statements of HDCAM. The SRW-1 records HDCAM-SR, which is probably one of the most coveted, excellent formats ever developed recording at 880Mbps 4:4:4 at 2:1 compression--curses to ProRes and Apple's cavalier inconsistencies with gamma, etc. (damned tired of it here). For my own gratification/education, I am gonna shoot some 4-4-4 stuff to mine in my testing, and others to ProRes and DNxHD, to see for myself how each holds up in Davinici. I've seen very distinct differences between ProRes and DNxHD even at their highest bit-rates, and was quite surprised.

Does it really matter if a dude is shooting skateboard videos with his T2i or a Franken-rigged F35, so long as the viewer is thrilled? As Walter Murch so brilliantly elaborates in his most excellent book, that the only thing that matters is those 24 frames passing by each second. Politics, production struggles, lens choices, lights, cameras, producers, directors--none of them really matter to the story. Amen.

Some of the most compelling and thrilling videos I've seen recently are the thrill-seekers in flying suits jumping off cliffs with their GoPros. I don't give two hoots about lens, codecs, bit-rates, nonsense. IT DOESN'T MATTER. (and it's not just the craziness...their angles are awesome, multi-cam, brilliant edits, great music and sound! Many applauses!)

Read In the Blink of an Eye,it will change the way think, shoot, edit.
 
LeavingTheCandy said:
I am gonna shoot some 4-4-4 stuff to mine in my testing, and others to ProRes and DNxHD, to see for myself how each holds up in Davinici. I've seen very distinct differences between ProRes and DNxHD even at their highest bit-rates, and was quite surprised.
Click to expand...

Make sure to post your findings :)
 
I am no way dissing HDCAM or HDCAM SR it's older, better-looking brother. The only one I like to diss on is the h.264 you get from the Canon 5D Mark II. That was fun to diss on :)

I hear you - science and tech and specs don't mean sh*t if it ain't got that bela fleck.
 
(please please please don't let this thread derail, it's been quite interesting until recently...)
 
Regarding the real topic here. Back on the days when I was shooting big budget commercials with this camera (rented), it was kind of impossible to shoot at 880mbits, and anything beyond 422, badically because there were no decks to read those tapes, nor the studios wanted the extra trouble for that "minimal extra improvement in quality".
Btw, the f35 can shoot at 12 bits 444 if you have the proper way to record that. That is 4 times the bit depth than a 10 bit file. Veerry nice.
 
eddavid said:
Please don't pay much attention to Adamseboj, he is by all definitions, a troll. I picture him as a 22 year old kid who has studied a lot about specs like 4:4:4 being the holy grail and how Master Primes are the best lenses that everyone uses in Hollywood.

As someone who has shot a lot with both Cooke S4 lenses, Zeiss Ultra Primes and Nikon AIS lenses from the 70s on cameras from the Arri Alexa all the way to an Arri 435 film camera, I can tell you Adam, still glass can not only be optically superior, but in some ways actually better to use on newer cameras. In that there is something also clinical about throwing on a Zeiss Ultra Prime onto an Arri Alexa or even the Cooke S4 onto the Alexa.

And that the hottest lenses right now are older ones, trying to take the digital edge off.

And as Mac said, until recently, most "Hollywood" digital productions were recordering to HDCAM, which is 4:1:0 (or something like that) 8-bit, or dvcpro hd which is 4:2:2 8-bit 100mbps.

The new codecs smoke it all out of the water.

There are more than specs again as Mac said.

Darn, look at me, having the need to reply to a troll.

And Adam, overall I think you write some really excellent posts and get people thinking in a good way. As you get older, you'll learn to write statements that don't get people's feathers so ruffled. In that, I don't think you are deliberatly trying to be a troll. You're just like that annoying kid in high school who thinks he's always right all the time, but doesn't have any real-world experience.
Click to expand...

Of course. I don't agree with you so I must be a troll. Typical. You know, even though I know you are probably twice my age (and I'm already in my thirties) this attitude is not the most mature.

But I wish I was just 22 years old, but the fact is I've been shooting for over 15 years, so I would have to have started with 7.

About learn to write statements that don't get people's feathers so ruffled, well, for one, it's not my fault people have such thin skin and are so sensitive to anybody who deviates from their notions. Second, what am I, a crowed pleaser? I'm not dancing on the stage and expecting people to stick money in my thong. This is not who I am or how I conduct myself. If you wanna be that person, knock yourself out. Maybe everybody will love you. I'm not worried about that. I'm here to share thoughts. Like them, great. Don't like them, deal with it like an adult instead of going the childish way and copout by calling people trolls.

By the way, double check your wikipedia links HDCAM is 3:1:1.
 
mlysbakken said:
Adam, this is not meant to be rude, but as far as I can see you seem to have got stuck in a sentence that someone posted many pages back. It's not like this thread is implying that the F35 will magically give you high production values. The only one discussing that at the moment appears to be you.

And all this talk about stills glass being horrible: do you honestly think photographers don't require good glass? Since when are photos lower resolution than film? Ergonomically they're challenging and they breathe more, yes, but you make it seem like stills glass will destroy your images to a degree that people could just as well go about shooting on a 5D. Then why don't most photographers PL-mod they're cameras? I can promise you that an F35 with nikon lenses will look better than an F3 with the same lenses (But of course it won't look like Real Steel unless you have one hell of a lighting, set design and post budget). I prefer PL, but good stills glass is still good glass. Not everybody can afford the high-end stuff, but that doesn't mean they should stop making films.

And what is all this stuff about Real Steel, anyway? It's not the blueprint for a nice image. I know plenty of beautiful films shot with small lighting budgets and in natural light - now, is a great camera unneccessary in those conditions? If yes, then why do they keep shooting those films on Alexas and 35 mm? You've seen Miguel's test footage: That's plenty beautiful for me.

But I get your point. The F35 will not make the amateur a pro, and if someone makes horrible images with their 5D II, AF-100 or F3, then they'll probably continue to make horrible images on the F35. But if they make beautiful images with the aforementioned cameras, then what's going to stop them from making even more beautiful images on this?
Click to expand...


Fair enough. I will digress. But this started because people were coming in and asking basic questions such as how to power the camera and questions about basic accessories that anybody prepared to shoot with this type of camera should know, which shows how over their heads some where. I got the impression that because of the price, people who would be considering a C100 for example were now considering a F35 without knowing exactly what they were getting into and thinking it's as simple as a C100. The driving force seemed to be the hype that you are getting a Hollywood camera for the price of a handycam, without knowing this is just half true. Then somebody brought up Real Steel (not me as I didn't even like the movie or thought it looked particularly special). All I tried was to show those who clearly were lost and didn't really know the camera, that buying a F35 to ghetto it up with cheaper add-ons wont get you on the same league as a Hollywood set up, and show the ins and outs of shooting with such a camera. But of course, once you have said it, now everybody suddenly already knew it. So I wonder why the clueless questions.
I don't think it's a camera for people interested in a C100, regardless of price. It's a camera for somebody who was considering a Scarlet or even a F5 but likes what the F35 offers better. My opinion!
The price seemed to be misleading a lot of people and the Hollywood hype "lie" added to the craziness. All I tried was to bring perspective to some who clearly were over their heads. I guess I'm a sinner for that.
Around here if you're not dreaming on with everybody you must be a troll.

All I said was that F35+cheap stuff is not the same as F35+expensive stuff and will not get you the same results. This is true, no matter if people want to see it or not. I never said the F3 with the same lens would be better. I never said the F35 is not a good camera. I never said you don't need a great camera. I never said you couldn't get great images without expensive lighting. I said that thinking that a F35 body will get you there is an illusion and comparing what you do to what Hollywood does with a F35, just because they are the same camera head is foolish, and it is. But I guess this will not sink. And I know why. I guess my mistake was to unintentionally piss on people's pipe dream. I'm sorry if I looked like I was trying to destroy people's dream. This was not the intention.

I will leave you guys to it and will be watching for LeavingTheCandy's F3 and f35 tests.

I wont go into the still lens debacle. I guess you have your opinion, I have mine, Roger Deakins has his. Maybe studio movies will start shooting with still lenses now that the modern ones are so close to the cine glass, who knows.

So everybody go ahead and knock yourselves out with the cheap F35 bodies. Hopefully we will all hear of you in the next Cannes, Venice or Torronto festival.

All the best.
 
I asked about powering it because I am new to this & want to step up from a pair of GH2s. There's no delusion about making anything at "Hollywood level." Excuse me for asking a question: apparently that behaviour is out of line.

MacGregor's test footage blew me away & I'm just trying to figure out if the juice is worth the squeeze.

That being said, my hat's off to MacGregor for showing me exactly what lies beyond the DSLR world. Please continue this thread, there's loads of great information here!

-0z-
 
Shawn D. Caple said:
Macgregor,
I know you mentioned how you modded your mount but could you summize it here and maybe pop in a photo?

I want pl glass but wouldn't be able to purchase the number of lenses I would need due to the price. I have very nice Zeiss primes like Adam, and gh2s, but want to make a jump to higher ground. Modding the mount would be a nice compromise until the work pays off.
Click to expand...


I don't have a picture with me, but basically this is what they did: they took one PL mount/front of the camera (it's all one piece), drilled inside the PL mount to get closer to the sensor (nikon flange focal distance is shorter than PL), and then they attached a Nikon-EOS adapter I had bought on ebay (why? because it was the easiest/most convinient way I could think of in order to get a Nikon mount with an iris leveler). Since they had to drill so much metal out of the PL mount, they added some extra ring on the back of the lens mount just in case to help avoid any future issues with heavy lenses.
And that was basically it.
There's a flange focal distance screw on the camera, that was used to accurately collimate the flange focal distance.

Now I can swap mounts. It's not a piece of cake but it can be done in about 15 minutes.
 
I just watched another Zhang Yimou movie shot on the F35 (plus some film too, I guess for the slow-motion parts): The Flowers of War. Absolutely breathtaking. And of course it looked great too.
 
Samuel H said:
I just watched another Zhang Yimou movie shot on the F35 (plus some film too, I guess for the slow-motion parts): The Flowers of War. Absolutely breathtaking. And of course it looked great too.
Click to expand...

Holy cow, that looks gorgeous. Are you sure that's not film?

Edit: skin tones look great, but I just saw the part inside the church... ugly highlights through the windows... meh
 
Got to play with some quick tests today... only have two nitpicks:

1. Not sure about clip/rolloff, we need to talk to you, Mac. But someone probably already emailed xD

2. Solution for lens mount, being stuck with PL is a pain and not having PL might be worse. Needs Macgregor's solution.


Have never really sat with this camera before, officially the first Sony camera that I wouldn't hesitate to use... and the first Sony camera that I would choose over Epic in a heartbeat for narrative work. O_o Overall, I like it a smidge more than I do my new obsession, Blackmagic. >:P JUST A SMIDGE. Need a bit more time/testing/shooting to really say, and of course the camera is more expensive so.

Color is pretty amazing, motion is CCD killer, noise characteristics are very pleasing even when underexposed and I actually like the camera's weight when you've got primes, hyperdeck, and a battery on it. Would totally rock it handheld and beef up over a shoot.

I've been reading this thread, a few times people have asked about the F3... not even in the same league. Nowhere near. If the F55 is anything like this then it's a steal. Congrats to the new owners. Amazing how things change so fast.
 
Kholi said:
I've been reading this thread, a few times people have asked about the F3... not even in the same league. Nowhere near. If the F55 is anything like this then it's a steal. Congrats to the new owners. Amazing how things change so fast.
Click to expand...

In broad day light, absolutely. In low light such as available street lighting, the F3 beats the F35 hands down. Actually even a FS100 or AF100 do. See the Zacuto test for some reference.
The F35 is not a good low light camera. You need a "real" lighting package to shoot with the F35 at night and get great results. With a full grip truck, the F35 could beat the F3 in low too.
 
Last edited:
macgregor said:
Holy cow, that looks gorgeous. Are you sure that's not film?
Click to expand...

IMDB says F35 and film. But I'm guessing mostly F35, and film only for the slow motion shots. Because Zhang Yimou's previous film was Under The Hawthorn Tree, a drama (no slow motion) shot with the same DP (Zhao Xiaoding, who also did House of the Flying Daggers and Curse of the Golden Flower) and entirely with F35 (again, according to IMDB). It's just a guess, though.

macgregor said:
Edit: skin tones look great, but I just saw the part inside the church... ugly highlights through the windows... meh
Click to expand...

Come on, man... it may have a couple of broken highlights here and there in VERY difficult shots, but most of the movie looks gorgeous. These look like paintings:

flowers-of-war_01.jpg


The-Flowers-of-War.jpeg


review1041-400x200.jpg
 
It's sunday, so lets have some fun.

I captured a few shots from that movie.


vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h45m19s87.png

This is a slow motion shot, and it definitely looks like film. Grainy. Soft. Yet really nice.



vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h40m18s135.png

And this shot is from the same scene, but shows no grain, so I bet it was shot on the F35.



Now, lets add some grain to the F35 shot...


vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h40m18s135grain.jpg

Wooow, that looks much better to me now...

So yes, we already knew this, but adding a bit of grain to F35 footage makes a good match to film stock (no, adding grain to 5D footage does not look like film, it looks like DSLR footage with grain on top XDD).

OK, check this shot now:

vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h43m06s23.png

Nice skintones. OVERexposed areas, and yet, it doesn't scream videoish. That's what I meant by, let the highlights clip if you have to, the transition is smooth and natural like no other camera (yet).
Notice that in general all these shots are really sharp (despite compression) yet there is no trace of unsharpen masks or any digital edge enhancement. There's plenty of resolution with a +5K sensor...



vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h40m49s187.png

Nice shot, and not necessarily expensive in terms of lighting package.

vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h40m55s3.png

WTF! Bruce Wayne??? :grin:


vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h41m39s172.png

Example of "noisy" F35 footage. The noise characteristic isn't as annoying as most digital cameras. I could even say that it resembles the look of fast film stock.
If someone showed me this shot, I would have swore it was film.



vlcsnap-2013-02-03-11h43m41s69.png

And this is the ugly part. Not sure if it's the camera, the DP or the grading, but this screams video to me. Not good.


I've come to notice that the footage shot in Slog with this camera can dramatically change depending on the grading. Red footage always looks like red to my eyes, but F35 footage can look terrible or really filmic depending on who does the color grading. SO be carefull!
In general, I'm not in love with the look of this movie, it could have as well being shot on the Alexa...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top