Just got a new camera - Sony F35

6.5 is a good price for a f35 with interface box, if you don't need it right away, lookup the price of the box from the sony site and try to talk them down even more. Like anything it's just a time or money balance. You will pay less money and put more time in tracking down a box, you'll be able to find one with hunting.

Please buy the 18-35mm GL Optics and tell us all about it. I can't remember where I confirmed it covered, but now you have me worried as well about vignetting. I am still waiting on my Sigma lens, nikon mount is heavily backordered I guess. I have seen a few of the OLD Sony PL primes sell cheap or find a converted 70-200 2.8 PL that combined with the sigma would be a fairly complete coverage for a price on par with the camera. I think the Nikon mount is a powerful piece to have as part of any kit, but if you are starting from scratch on glass go PL.
 
How does the F35 hold up in a 4K world?

Depends who's asking.

If they are a techy, I would ask how one can consider the F35 inferior on grounds of resolution when its pixel count is higher than that of Sony's own F5, F55 and the original RED ONE.

For people that care about the image, the F35 is in my mind the single best digital camera for genuinely emulating a "film look". No, it is not technically the best camera out there anymore, but film wasn't perfect.

For the producers, think of the camera like an EPIC with redcine built in. The F65's raw is 40mb a frame. I don't think the productions I work on could handle that. They have a hard enough time with cineform at 3gb a minute.

For everyone else, if you cannot create gorgeous images on the F35 then no RED or ARRI is going to save you.
 
James - totally agree.

I'm just glad I was able to pick one up when I did as it seems like the availability is dwindling and as a result I treat mine like a precious stone since I have no clue if I'd ever be able to pick another one up in the same condition/hours/etc... it scares me some times.

What concerns me about the industry is that it seems to be pushing further and further away from the look that makes F35 so special in many ways. This is all of course my opinion but the F65 from what I've seen seems nice but sterile and the F55/F5/FS700 all seem to treat skin tones very poorly and have a distinctly un-film-like quality to them, and these are all Sony cameras! The black fringing around highlights I feel like is just totally unacceptable but surprisingly I don't hear all that many people complaining about it even though it's all I can see when I view FS100/700 footage. But these issues exist because there are other things at play that more emphasis is being placed upon, like being 4K-capable or recording higher framerates, and I can certainly understand why people place importance on those things. But speaking from a pure aesthetic standpoint, the only other footage that might have bested the F35 in my mind was the Aaton Penelope Delta which I saw some beautiful footage from at NAB last year but that camera is sadly no more despite some truly groundbreaking innovations.

I feel like Panavision must be the reason the Genesis/F35/SRW9000 look so pretty since everything Sony made after those cameras has been a step in the other direction, maybe apart from the F3 (a bit).

But on the bright side since the business of making cameras is becoming cheaper and cheaper there is only going to be more choice and more room for boutique companies like Ikonoskop and Digital Bolex to have their place in the market for people who are looking for something a little less ordinary.

There is something really cool about having such a weird/exclusive item. Thanks again Miguel for being the first one to take the plunge and getting me to lug around this huge chunk of metal :-)
 
Barrett Phillips said:
What concerns me about the industry is that it seems to be pushing further and further away from the look that makes F35 so special in many ways.
Click to expand...

I don't think they ever replicated it, and it is one of the earliest s35 Digital Cinema cameras.
 
I've been genuinely surprised to see how little image mojo the new F's from Sony have. Even the 65 is a bit dry (but it's still better than the 5/55). Maybe it's CMOS vs. CCD's? I see footage from the Ikonoscop and even the new D-Bolex and they have a certain somethin'-somethin' to them that I find quite appealing. There's a warmth there (and I'm not talking color, either).

I'm not concerned about 4k anytime soon, but I'm on my own schedule with this stuff.
 
keithlango said:
I've been genuinely surprised to see how little image mojo the new F's from Sony have. Even the 65 is a bit dry (but it's still better than the 5/55). Maybe it's CMOS vs. CCD's? I see footage from the Ikonoscop and even the new D-Bolex and they have a certain somethin'-somethin' to them that I find quite appealing. There's a warmth there (and I'm not talking color, either).

I'm not concerned about 4k anytime soon, but I'm on my own schedule with this stuff.
Click to expand...
I think part of the reason is the base image, and someone correct me if I am wrong. F3/5/55 all start with a flat clean image, and that effects the final grade, imho. Not that they couldn't replicate the f35 for the most part, but everything from the way they make one shoot to how the initial image effects the colorists, end up showing in the final product. Maybe if the newer cameras gave up some of that shadow detail in favor of the highlights... anyway, I am in over my head on this thread. I am just a lurker here. stepping away.
 
keithlango said:
I've been genuinely surprised to see how little image mojo the new F's from Sony have. Even the 65 is a bit dry (but it's still better than the 5/55). Maybe it's CMOS vs. CCD's? I see footage from the Ikonoscop and even the new D-Bolex and they have a certain somethin'-somethin' to them that I find quite appealing. There's a warmth there (and I'm not talking color, either).

I'm not concerned about 4k anytime soon, but I'm on my own schedule with this stuff.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, there is that mojo with the F35.
I have shot quite a bit with the F55 (raw) and it was very hard to get an organic mojo-ish look in the grade, even tho the raw is pushed through slog2.
Having said that, it was really awesome to have a native ISO of 1250, not having to light as much as I do with the F35, and of course flicking 240fps when i need to, but the aliasing without changing to the 2k OLPF is pretty bad and some shots were unusable.
And again, shot the F65 on a few shoots too, same clinical/ non mojo-ish issues, great fast 800 ISO, the 120fps was great, and without aliasing.

Sony definitely only nailed one camera in history, the F35, and who knows how much of the success is due to Panavision working along side them.
I'm almost inclined to remove the "sony" badge on my camera as it almost gives the F35 a bad name.

James0b57 said:
I think part of the reason is the base image, and someone correct me if I am wrong. F3/5/55 all start with a flat clean image, and that effects the final grade, imho. Not that they couldn't replicate the f35 for the most part, but everything from the way they make one shoot to how the initial image effects the colorists, end up showing in the final product. Maybe if the newer cameras gave up some of that shadow detail in favor of the highlights... anyway, I am in over my head on this thread. I am just a lurker here. stepping away.
Click to expand...

James, I think Miguel put it well, the dynamic range allocation in the F35 is veeeeery film like, with more highlight less shadow. To get this with the F's is possible in post, but a lot of work.
I have realised that it is very much up to the colourist to get the mojo in - and I've come close to getting F55/F65 to get F35 like with skin tones etc - but only with much frustration and effort.

I finally found a path that really makes the F55/F65 sing, and thats going the ACES route with grading. With ACES the highlights are far easier to tame and get more organic looking images (albeit using much effort, and disk space!)

With the F35 in resolve its so easy, I just stick Mac's slog to cineon on 3D input, then film stock emulation on 3D output, and grade in-between, done, mojolistic!
But again, the ease of use with the F55, fast sensor and lightweight is awesome (no sore back n shoulders, less lighting setup), but hard to mojo!
 
Last edited:
I was thinking, do you guys think its viable to start a project of making a new "shell" with lightweight 3D printed plastic to re-house the F35, that incorporates the IF box innards and power feed, and the BM hyper shuttle electronics?
All in one design.
And to add to that give it an FZ mount that can then use pretty much any lens. Wait, maybe a sony NEX mount and then "hello speed booster!"

It's plausible, I spoke to my cousin who is an electronic engineer that has his own company that make all sorts of gizmos/electronics, in 3D printed housings, and when i ran the F35 re-house all in one idea, he said its a fantastic idea and doable.

So it can cut weight, incorporate the IF box innards and power feed, as well as the Black magic hyper shuttle innards (which reduces overall weight and size), and quite convenient to have an onboard recorder that you just slip SSD's into, like the Arri Alexa XT with its onboard Codex.
Also possible to design into the shell, a shoulder mount and 15/19mm rod insert holes.

Man, imagine a redesigned lightweight modern camera with the F35 mojo! and if using a speed booster native ISO should add a stop or stop and a half!

Am I dreaming? Any ideas?
 
I am pretty sure if you did that to your camera you'd have something no one else would touch with a bargepole. Try getting an insurance company to pay out if it breaks after you've done that to it.

Personally, I think the PL mount whilst a bit of a pain initially (for the cost of the glass) is one of the main benefits of the camera. Half of my reasoning of buying an F35 was that I would be buying into accessories and glass which will last me a lifetime. That, and I just hate using stills glass for a lot of what I do. I appreciate there are reasons why you would find it desirable to put stills glass on this camera, but for me I can't see the benefit. I'd just be cursing myself.

As for cutting weight on this camera, I am pretty sure that won't happen anytime soon. I bet you'll find there is a reason the housing is the size it is - it's full!
 
Jusgorilla said:
I was thinking, do you guys think its viable to start a project of making a new "shell" with lightweight 3D printed plastic to re-house the F35, that incorporates the IF box innards and power feed, and the BM hyper shuttle electronics?
All in one design.
And to add to that give it an FZ mount that can then use pretty much any lens. Wait, maybe a sony NEX mount and then "hello speed booster!"

It's plausible, I spoke to my cousin who is an electronic engineer that has his own company that make all sorts of gizmos/electronics, in 3D printed housings, and when i ran the F35 re-house all in one idea, he said its a fantastic idea and doable.

So it can cut weight, incorporate the IF box innards and power feed, as well as the Black magic hyper shuttle innards (which reduces overall weight and size), and quite convenient to have an onboard recorder that you just slip SSD's into, like the Arri Alexa XT with its onboard Codex.
Also possible to design into the shell, a shoulder mount and 15/19mm rod insert holes.

Man, imagine a redesigned lightweight modern camera with the F35 mojo! and if using a speed booster native ISO should add a stop or stop and a half!

Am I dreaming? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

I love the idea! As a personalised project it could work just fine assuming you have the resources to pull it off (and the new housing is rugged enough to keep all those expensive circuit boards safe). I pull the outer casing off my F3 and replaced it with Element Technica's body armour and it really did make it a new camera - vastly easier to rig, own and operate. Taking that same approach (on a larger scale) to the F35 sounds great to me - ergonomics were never it's strong point.
 
Jusgorilla said:
I was thinking, do you guys think its viable to start a project of making a new "shell" with lightweight 3D printed plastic to re-house the F35, that incorporates the IF box innards and power feed, and the BM hyper shuttle electronics?
All in one design.
And to add to that give it an FZ mount that can then use pretty much any lens. Wait, maybe a sony NEX mount and then "hello speed booster!"

It's plausible, I spoke to my cousin who is an electronic engineer that has his own company that make all sorts of gizmos/electronics, in 3D printed housings, and when i ran the F35 re-house all in one idea, he said its a fantastic idea and doable.

So it can cut weight, incorporate the IF box innards and power feed, as well as the Black magic hyper shuttle innards (which reduces overall weight and size), and quite convenient to have an onboard recorder that you just slip SSD's into, like the Arri Alexa XT with its onboard Codex.
Also possible to design into the shell, a shoulder mount and 15/19mm rod insert holes.

Man, imagine a redesigned lightweight modern camera with the F35 mojo! and if using a speed booster native ISO should add a stop or stop and a half!

Am I dreaming? Any ideas?
Click to expand...

I've got an old Aaton LTR with magazine, we could try to jam it in there. That would be a hell of a camera.
 
JMtheDP said:
I am pretty sure if you did that to your camera you'd have something no one else would touch with a bargepole. Try getting an insurance company to pay out if it breaks after you've done that to it.

Personally, I think the PL mount whilst a bit of a pain initially (for the cost of the glass) is one of the main benefits of the camera. Half of my reasoning of buying an F35 was that I would be buying into accessories and glass which will last me a lifetime. That, and I just hate using stills glass for a lot of what I do. I appreciate there are reasons why you would find it desirable to put stills glass on this camera, but for me I can't see the benefit. I'd just be cursing myself.

As for cutting weight on this camera, I am pretty sure that won't happen anytime soon. I bet you'll find there is a reason the housing is the size it is - it's full!
Click to expand...

I hear you James.
but for me in South Africa insurance ain't worried about the look of the camera, they insured the F35 without even looking at it I told them it's worth $200k but I insured it for $10k knowing I might or might not find a used replacement, and they were fine with it.
As for no one wanting to touch it, I disagree, and I bought it knowing that if I can't sell it, I'll just keep it if I move on.

The size reduction I was on about is actually sparked by your recent mod to the IF box. As you explained there is so much dead space in it, and you re incorporated the innards into that plate you have for the CineDeck. So the IF box and hyper shuttle sticks out the back of the F35 and makes it longer, so if those two parts were in one housing it would save space and make the length shorter. I know the F35 is full inside.

I'm still dreaming btw, just putting it out there ;)
 
Jusgorilla said:
I hear you James.
but for me in South Africa insurance ain't worried about the look of the camera, they insured the F35 without even looking at it I told them it's worth $200k but I insured it for $10k knowing I might or might not find a used replacement, and they were fine with it.
As for no one wanting to touch it, I disagree, and I bought it knowing that if I can't sell it, I'll just keep it if I move on.

The size reduction I was on about is actually sparked by your recent mod to the IF box. As you explained there is so much dead space in it, and you re incorporated the innards into that plate you have for the CineDeck. So the IF box and hyper shuttle sticks out the back of the F35 and makes it longer, so if those two parts were in one housing it would save space and make the length shorter. I know the F35 is full inside.

I'm still dreaming btw, just putting it out there ;)
Click to expand...

Please, do keep dreaming. We're all dreamers, otherwise we wouldn't work in storytelling!

I think the main suggestion I would have is you'd be integrating the IF box into the hyperdeck, but I believe the hyperdeck is 4:2:2 only, so you could just use one of the monitor outputs from the camera?

I should also point out that the "dead space" I shaved from inside the IF box is mostly my audio board and the XLR input! That said the XLR input doesn't really bother me anymore as my local battery guys (Hawkwoods) will make me LEMO cables for anything.

The F3 armor, as I understand it, does transform that camera completely but in my mind it has a lot more problems than the F35 does ergonomics-wise.

I am thinking of getting some otto-nemenz style cheese/handle plates made up for the camera though. They could be bloody handy.

At the end of the day though, I really enjoy the simplicity of the camera - lens on front, recorder on the back, power in the side. Simples!
 
Jusgorilla said:
James, I think Miguel put it well, the dynamic range allocation in the F35 is veeeeery film like, with more highlight less shadow. To get this with the F's is possible in post, but a lot of work.
I have realised that it is very much up to the colourist to get the mojo in - and I've come close to getting F55/F65 to get F35 like with skin tones etc - but only with much frustration and effort.

I finally found a path that really makes the F55/F65 sing, and thats going the ACES route with grading. With ACES the highlights are far easier to tame and get more organic looking images (albeit using much effort, and disk space!)

With the F35 in resolve its so easy, I just stick Mac's slog to cineon on 3D input, then film stock emulation on 3D output, and grade in-between, done, mojolistic!
But again, the ease of use with the F55, fast sensor and lightweight is awesome (no sore back n shoulders, less lighting setup), but hard to mojo!
Click to expand...
I see, I have had similar issues with Red, and raw. Seems there is a balance with proper exposure, and a gentle highlight roll off, and too often they do not play well. But I have also found, the camera make-up absolutely forces the hand of the shooter, and the f35 with its native highlight allocation seem more intuitive than what many other digital cameras have naturally.

Thanks for that. I always wonder why so many f5/55/65 videos I've seen lack the mojo of even the simplest shots I have seen here on this forum.
 
James0b57 said:
I see, I have had similar issues with Red, and raw. Seems there is a balance with proper exposure, and a gentle highlight roll off, and too often they do not play well. But I have also found, the camera make-up absolutely forces the hand of the shooter, and the f35 with its native highlight allocation seem more intuitive than what many other digital cameras have naturally.

Thanks for that. I always wonder why so many f5/55/65 videos I've seen lack the mojo of even the simplest shots I have seen here on this forum.
Click to expand...

I am NOT the RED's biggest fan, by any stretch of the imagination, but I do believe it is possible to get damn fine pictures from it. Ugly ones too, but so is the case with the F35.

I think as the F35 keeps much of its processing internal (rather than letting someone in post do it) there is that little less scope to get it wrong.

But, my thoughts with the RED relating to highlights are:

The original Mysterium Sensor was ISO 320. I thought that to be a fairly honest assessment. The (then) new M-X sensor was rated at 800 ISO. However, I always thought that seemed a bit keen. My own personal opinion is that RED improved the S/N ratio on the M-X, giving themselves a bit better shadow performance. So, although the sensor didn't become more sensitive I think they persuaded people to rate it a bit higher and effectively gift themselves a bit more headroom. How it gets rolled off is another matter entirely.

I think the pretty thing with the F35's highlights isn't when they happen (I am sure an ALEXA would kick its ass in a DR test) but how they happen. That's the important bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top