Just got a new camera - Sony F35

SJX said:
LOL if the F35 was truly outdated it wouldn't be kicking the behind of many or most new cameras. 10 years old? Is it 2018 already?
Click to expand...

To the best of my understanding the Panavision Genesis was essentially completed by 2004 at the latest. Given that one of the films released in 2006 that was shot on the Genesis was Superman Returns - a major motion picture with substantial post work, a two year production timeframe seems reasonable - although I haven't looked it up carefully.

Given that the chip and circuit boards of the F35 essentially come from the Genesis - then yes, calling this camera out for being a decade old is at least partially fair.

That said, a decade ago, CMOS imagers were almost unheard of professionally. There was no RED One. There was no Alexa. There were no video DSLRs. The Genesis/F35 was the pinnacle of CCD development - an expensive technology that is now being abandoned in favor of the much newer CMOS imagers.
 
Viddovation said:
To the best of my understanding the Panavision Genesis was essentially completed by 2004 at the latest. Given that one of the films released in 2006 that was shot on the Genesis was Superman Returns - a major motion picture with substantial post work, a two year production timeframe seems reasonable - although I haven't looked it up carefully.

Given that the chip and circuit boards of the F35 essentially come from the Genesis - then yes, calling this camera out for being a decade old is at least partially fair.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that Sony sat on their butts for 4 years just waiting to release the F35 and released a 4 year old unchanged Genesis with a Sony name plate. 4 years in electronics and computers is an eternity. I also doubt that Panavision has never updated the Genesis in all this time.

4 years is basically a camera generation too.
 
Last edited:
SJX said:
I highly doubt that Sony sat on their butts for 4 years just waiting to release the F35 and released a 4 year old unchanged Genesis with a Sony name plate. 4 years in electronics and computers is an eternity. I also doubt that Panavision has never updated the Genesis in all this time.

4 years is basically a camera generation too.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but that's really all speculation, isn't it? The CCD chip is the same, the output options are generally the same (granted, it was 2012 firmware that made 12bit RGB 444 available). I stand by my statement - "Given that the chip and circuit boards of the F35 essentially came from the Genesis - then yes, calling this camera out for being a decade old is at least partially fair." (Emphasis added on the word partially)

But look - you could shoot a top notch major motion picture on a 20 year Super 35 film camera tomorrow. I don't think as F35 owners we should be ashamed of the camera's age or heritage. I wear it as a badge of honor personally. Think of it this way - the Panavision Genesis is one of the ridiculously unobtainable and expensive digital cinema cameras that inspired Jim Jannard to develop the RED One. Jim Jannard made it his stated purpose to make major motion picture digital cinema cameras affordable for everyone. And here, a decade later, his mission is accomplished - because of pioneers like him I was able to buy a Sony F35, one of the finest digital cinema cameras ever made for major studio pictures - for $5,500. And it's on my kitchen table. I've never owned a RED camera, but I really ought to send them a box of cookies or something.
 
Viddovation said:
You may be right, but that's really all speculation, isn't it? The CCD chip is the same, the output options are generally the same (granted, it was 2012 firmware that made 12bit RGB 444 available). I stand by my statement - "Given that the chip and circuit boards of the F35 essentially came from the Genesis - then yes, calling this camera out for being a decade old is at least partially fair." (Emphasis added on the word partially)

But look - you could shoot a top notch major motion picture on a 20 year Super 35 film camera tomorrow. I don't think as F35 owners we should be ashamed of the camera's age or heritage. I wear it as a badge of honor personally. Think of it this way - the Panavision Genesis is one of the ridiculously unobtainable and expensive digital cinema cameras that inspired Jim Jannard to develop the RED One. Jim Jannard made it his stated purpose to make major motion picture digital cinema cameras affordable for everyone. And here, a decade later, his mission is accomplished - because of pioneers like him I was able to buy a Sony F35, one of the finest digital cinema cameras ever made for major studio pictures - for $5,500. And it's on my kitchen table. I've never owned a RED camera, but I really ought to send them a box of cookies or something.
Click to expand...

I would say it's more logic than speculation. Why would they just release a 4 year old camera? It makes no sense. I think the F35 should be seen more like a Genesis MKII than a Genesis by Sony. It makes no business or industrial sense otherwise. Sony updates their cameras every 3 or 4 years. I don't think it's speculation as much as it's a given and obvious that the F35 is updated compared to the 2004 Genesis. You mention them sharing the same circuit boards. But this is exactly where I think they don't. I'm sure in terms or circuits and processor power the F35 is updated. Can you even buy a cpu processor made 4 years ago for example? 4 years is like forever in computer talk. Maybe the sensor is exactly the same. Maybe. But the electronics and computers are for sure updated. Why wouldn't they? Color science most likely tweaked too.

If you actually look at the Genesis, apart from the SRW-1 they don't even look that alike. Totally different housing. They both look like film cameras but they are quite different externally. The F35 seems a bit smaller. Maybe because the updated electronics didn't need as much space?

About being ashamed for using an older camera, why? I didn't mean this at all. To the contrary. If the F35 is indeed 10 years old it just makes it more embarrassing to all the new cameras the F35 beats. :evil:

I don't mean to just argue with you here. I'm just saying that I really don't think we can consider the F35 a 10 year old camera regardless of how it performs.

By the way the analogy with the 35mm film camera doesn't really fit as film cameras didn't really change that much when it comes to influencing the image and compared to digital. You would have to compare shooting on 35mm film stock from 20 years ago and that would be different compared to today's stocks for sure.
 
JMtheDP said:
Try watching DSLR footage in the cinema, that is where you notice a difference.
Click to expand...

Believe me I 100% want to agree with that statement but as someone who regularly goes to film festival screenings with his own work appearing on screen that was shot on F3, F55 and some RED, seeing it next to DSLR footage the difference is not that discernible as you would think. Moreso if the DOP was good. It blows me away every time I view screenings and pisses me off all at the same time but it is what it is.
 
SJX said:
I would say it's more logic than speculation. Why would they just release a 4 year old camera? It makes no sense. I think the F35 should be seen more like a Genesis MKII than a Genesis by Sony. It makes no business or industrial sense otherwise. Sony updates their cameras every 3 or 4 years. I don't think it's speculation as much as it's a given and obvious that the F35 is updated compared to the 2004 Genesis. You mention them sharing the same circuit boards. But this is exactly where I think they don't. I'm sure in terms or circuits and processor power the F35 is updated. Can you even buy a cpu processor made 4 years ago for example? 4 years is like forever in computer talk. Maybe the sensor is exactly the same. Maybe. But the electronics and computers are for sure updated. Why wouldn't they? Color science most likely tweaked too.

If you actually look at the Genesis, apart from the SRW-1 they don't even look that alike. Totally different housing. They both look like film cameras but they are quite different externally. The F35 seems a bit smaller. Maybe because the updated electronics didn't need as much space?

About being ashamed for using an older camera, why? I didn't mean this at all. To the contrary. If the F35 is indeed 10 years old it just makes it more embarrassing to all the new cameras the F35 beats. :evil:

I don't mean to just argue with you here. I'm just saying that I really don't think we can consider the F35 a 10 year old camera regardless of how it performs.

By the way the analogy with the 35mm film camera doesn't really fit as film cameras didn't really change that much when it comes to influencing the image and compared to digital. You would have to compare shooting on 35mm film stock from 20 years ago and that would be different compared to today's stocks for sure.
Click to expand...

I must genuinely disagree with you on a number of points here. First and foremost, it absolutely does make business sense to re-release a product without added development cost, assuming it will sell well. As for the change in the body shape between the cameras - the changes look primarily cosmetic to me. The camera didn't get significantly smaller, and didn't add significant feature sets. Again, the simplest explanation here is that Sony didn't spend a great deal of time redeveloping technology that was already proven and working. Even if the circuit boards got smaller, that doesn't mean they got better, functionally speaking. The comparison to mass market consumer computer hardware really doesn't hold water, because that's an entirely different market with volume sales the F35 was never intended to attract.

I would concede that the color science was tweaked - S-Log vs Pana-Log is a difference.

But again, I hold to my primary point - anyone who wants to claim the F35 is decade old technology is at least partially correct. And I think it wiser not to argue that point when it has merit and you nor I have access to the schematics to prove what the changes between the Genesis and the F35 were. I think it's wiser to discuss why these cameras were essentially unique, and should be considered viable today.
 
Viddovation said:
I must genuinely disagree with you on a number of points here. First and foremost, it absolutely does make business sense to re-release a product without added development cost, assuming it will sell well. As for the change in the body shape between the cameras - the changes look primarily cosmetic to me. The camera didn't get significantly smaller, and didn't add significant feature sets. Again, the simplest explanation here is that Sony didn't spend a great deal of time redeveloping technology that was already proven and working. Even if the circuit boards got smaller, that doesn't mean they got better, functionally speaking. The comparison to mass market consumer computer hardware really doesn't hold water, because that's an entirely different market with volume sales the F35 was never intended to attract.

I would concede that the color science was tweaked - S-Log vs Pana-Log is a difference.

But again, I hold to my primary point - anyone who wants to claim the F35 is decade old technology is at least partially correct. And I think it wiser not to argue that point when it has merit and you nor I have access to the schematics to prove what the changes between the Genesis and the F35 were. I think it's wiser to discuss why these cameras were essentially unique, and should be considered viable today.
Click to expand...

ok.
 
Guys, just so you know.
Sony and Panavision started to work on the Genesis in the year 2000.
I'm not sure exactly when the Genesis started to rent but I think it was not before 2005. Superman started shooting in march 2005 and that was the first production to use the camera right? and they even run on some problems (like stucked pixels) because the camera was just coming from beta.

The F35 while inherits a lot from the Genesis...
- takes less time to boot up
- offers lots of Hypergammas, different color spaces, and NR settings, and way more custom settings for tweaking the image
- smaller and lighter
- it has more dynamic range in the highlights (about .5 to a full stop tested by the BSC)
- slightly better noise levels
 
Hi,

I have a question to all f35 owners:
How do you deal with the off-centered tripod receptacles under the f35?
I mean, if you have a baseplate with rods attached under the camera, how do you align your rods with the center of the sensor? It's ok to be off-centered if you just use a follow focus but it becomes a problem with a matte box which have to be centered on the lens.
Thank you.
 
periferic said:
Hi,

I have a question to all f35 owners:
How do you deal with the off-centered tripod receptacles under the f35?
I mean, if you have a baseplate with rods attached under the camera, how do you align your rods with the center of the sensor? It's ok to be off-centered if you just use a follow focus but it becomes a problem with a matte box which have to be centered on the lens.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

I don't have my F35 with me, but I do know that the default bottom of the camera is a bit clunky, and is not Arri standard height. Now, many of these cameras end up coming with a semi-standard Arri height riser plate. And if I remember correctly, this is where the "offset" screw-holes are that you're mentioning.

The intended solution: use an Arri baseplate, either 19mm or 60mm studio. This baseplate is *not* intended for use with 15mm LWS rod system baseplates that are common these days for DSLRs and small cameras. The bottom of the bridgeplate fits into an Arri dovetail plate - and the dovetail plate is what you attach the tripod quick plate to. The dovetail allows for precision balancing of the camera payload, and serves as it's own sort of quickplate as well. Of course, if you use 19mm or 60mm studio for your bridgeplate, this means you need your accessories (follow focus, mattebox) to adapt to the respective standard, or you'll be buying an adapter to convert right back to 15mm LWS, defeating half the point.

The Arri BP-9 is a 15mm Studio bridgeplate, that should be compatible with the riser. But I know hardly anyone who uses 15mm Studio....

The Arri BP-8 is a 19mm bridgeplate, that should be compatible with the riser. Solid choice.

There are a number of other 19mm bridgeplates that would work. The key phrase you're looking for is "Arri" - even if it's not made for Arri, you want a product that conforms to Arri spacing. A 19mm bridgeplate for the RED One for Epic/Scarlet will *not* have the correct spacing. A 19mm plate for the Arri Alexa should have the correct spacing.

Personally, I own the UB-1 from Peter Gosens. I'll vouch for it. Cool thing is his plate is designed with a removeable inlay so it can be spaced for Arri/Red One/Red Epic, just by doing a 5 minute changeout. But make sure you order the correct one to start with!
http://www.petergosens.com/products/ub1/
 
Periferic

the F35 with the riser plate (which should be on every camera, or at least was on every camera) has mounting points in the same place as an ARRI 535, I have the ARRI BP-5 baseplate on mine which is designed for the 535 and it fits the F35 (with riser plate) perfectly. I believe the BP-8/BP-9 superceded that plate.

With regards to the difference between DSLR and F35, I do agree that DSLR footage CAN look really, really great. F35 footage can also be made to look like garbage. So can ALEXA stuff, I'm sure you could make IMAX look awful.

I have seen plenty of films shot on DSLR and I have to say I think there are way too many issues with them for me to be comfortable using them (and yes, I have tried). A lot of this is down to the fact that in situations where DSLRs have been the camera of choice, we haven't had the budget to work around the issues they have. It's personal preference, but I have yet to find a DSLR that, to me, produces a pleasing image under tungsten light. I'm sure there's one out there. I'm sure someone will tell me how wonderful RAW or magic lantern is, fortuntely for me though I have the F35 and consider myself very fortunate that I don't have to deal with any of those issues. Magic Lantern is a particular bugbear for me as people often tell me how much better it makes the DSLRs. Whilst I'm sure it does, I do not want to shoot a proper project with a "hacked" firmware as I don't think any insurance company would cover me if the camera packed up whilst running non-standard software.

At the end of the day, the camera is a tool and there are different tools for different jobs. Unfortunately, in the last five years it seems increasingly (in the low budget world at least) that the wrong people are deciding what tools I need to do my job.

Also, as far as I am aware the F35 does definitely share a chip with the Genesis, but I believe a lot of the boards are different. The only things the ARRI D-20 and D-21 shared between them were the chip and the case. Panavision themselves generally see the F35 as better (if you ask the right person), mostly because the Genesis has a total lack of output options - making monitoring unnecessarily difficult. I have never used the Genesis but everyone that I have spoken to vastly prefers the F35.

I couldn't give a crap if it was 30 years old. It makes amazing pictures. It won't stop making amazing pictures because something else has come out. If someone offered me their 20 year old Ferrari for the price we've paid for our F35s, I'd bite their hand off for it.
 
yachacha said:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sony-SR-R...880?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27e1174018

Some reasonably priced refurbished SR-R1 from a seller in overseas.

They also have an SR-R4 listed, I wonder what would happen if you hooked that up to an F35.
Click to expand...

I'd say this is a better deal:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SONY-SRR1-S...102?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item232c36cc46

$5k but it's New, from a respected Sony dealer, EC Pro - and includes two SR Memory cards, which are $1400 each, retail. Might get an even better deal if you call them directly...

Also, keep in mind you'll need to consider how to offload the cards if you go with the SR-R1. Unless you have the right AJA card, may cost you $2k extra for the SR-D1 card reader.
 
Anyone know how much $ the optional SR-R1 upgrade
to 880 or uncompressed is? That's another thing to factor in with the SR units--only 422/10 bit standard on the device I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top