FS7: New Sony F7 XDCAM 4K Super 35mm Camcorder

harddrive said:
Maybe, maybe not - I'm thinking more of a single operator doing mixed freelancing and only needing the one camera.

In which case, it's possible with an s35 chipped camera and adaptor with a slight compromise to mimic 2/3" performance, but a 2/3" camera is a 2/3" camera - period. And whilst I don't see 4k for news any time soon, a 4k capable camera makes a good 1080p camera - a 1080p only camera can't do 4k.

Regardless, real point is it's technically possible, contrary to many of the misunderstandings that widely exist. Large format doesn't automatically mean shallow of field - just stop down 2-3 stops. Large format doesn't automatically mean huge lenses for big zoom ranges, or massively compromised low light ability.
Click to expand...

There's a vast difference between it being technically possible and it being prudent for specific workflows. If you had stated up front that you saw this as a solution for freelancers wishing to use one camera body for multiple shooting styles, then fine. No argument. But you and others have consistently argued that this is a replacement for 2/3" ENG cameras in news organizations. This is where I must strenuously disagree.
 
On the question of 2/3" format depth of field v. S35 format depth of field...

As the guy who was the product manager for an optical device that crossed one over to the other, and who has a lot of experience testing on various optical devices, not just shuffling numbers in a theoretical way (although I did help author some of the website tools and documents that are being referred to here), I think I have some perspective in this.

Both in theory and in practice, the difference in apparent depth of field (because that's what we're ACTUALLY talking about) with these two formats is about 2.7 stops. I say about because what constitutes a S35 sensor varies from manufacturer to manufacturer, and to a lesser degree the same is actually true for 2/3" sensors. If you want to play it safe you can say 3 stops.

The argument that 2/3" is higher resolving as a 3-chip wit prism system v. a single chip Bayer sensor is not accurate in practice. On almost all 2/3" cameras there are micro-alignment issues between the three sensors which cause a definite resolution hit, one that is about equal to the loss of a Bayer sensor design. About the only camera that ever got around this was the Sony F23, with the single most advanced (and expensive) optical prism block design ever made. As an aside, I have to laugh at the claims made against Bayer pattern sensors and resolution for the last decade or so, as EVERY color photographic system ever invented be it electronic or chemical in design has by function suffered a loss of resolving power as it attempts to better capture color.

There is theory and there is practice, the difference between being a scientist and an engineer. Some theoretical math may say one thing but the practical application thereof can sometimes be different. So in practice, there resolving power of the format is about the same and the apparent depth of field differential is less than three stops. Wanna proe any of it? Just set up a couple of cameras side by side with some charts. It's actually a very easy measurement.


Now that we're done with the sidetrack of depth of field somehow being fascist or something, can this thread safely return to discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the Sony FS7?
 
Or simply shoot the news on an AX100. Before you dis the idea let me lay out an argument:

1. The zoom is 28-348 mm equivelent. It gives you the long reach that ENG desires with no lens switching. (You can throw a doubler on it if you really need it.)

2. It's F2.8-F4 at wide open. If you need to go wider than F4 you can do it. Very low noise too.

3. A one inch sensor is part way between 2/3" and S35. (Unfortunately there are various sizes of S35 sensors.) The slightly smaller than S35 is a little easier to maintain focus, but still gives good bokeh.

4. It's back pack portable and nothing to set up. You get more news if it's easy and fast to shoot. Just keep it on you at all times.

5. You can shoot 4k (UHD actually) or 1080p 422. Most news orgs won't complain about 1080p 422.

6. You can set it to full auto with mostly good results and it will allow you to concentrate on framing.

7. No lighting usually needed. I actually set mine for AE and underexpose half a stop. It preserves the highlights well that way.

That's my way of thinking right now.
 
Viddovation said:
There's a vast difference between it being technically possible and it being prudent for specific workflows. If you had stated up front that you saw this as a solution for freelancers wishing to use one camera body for multiple shooting styles, then fine. No argument. But you and others have consistently argued that this is a replacement for 2/3" ENG cameras in news organizations. This is where I must strenuously disagree.
Click to expand...

And I strongly agree with your disagreeing! :happy:

Steve
 
I don't care what they shoot the news on. I do care why so much FS7 footage looks worse than the local news. Some of the early footage is horrific. It's only two weeks before this camera ships...
 
Okay, where's "so much footage" from the FS7 that looks worse than the news?

I have seen 3/4 different shootings, graded + compressed to show up on vimeo/youtube and to be
honest: I can't say anything about the quality this cameras puts out.

1+2) the promo shootings, 1 in HD, 1 in 4k from Den Lennie and Jamea Tonkin:
http://www.fstopacademy.com/blog/shooting-the-sony-pxw-fs7-launch-videos/

some shots by Jason Wingrove:
https://vimeo.com/106461082

and some footage shot by Alistair Chapman:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/

one more tests here:
https://vimeo.com/107420890

By the way every camera that has been shot on until today was not final firmware...
 
Duke M. said:
Or simply shoot the news on an AX100. Before you dis the idea let me lay out an argument:

1. The zoom is 28-348 mm equivelent. It gives you the long reach that ENG desires with no lens switching. (You can throw a doubler on it if you really need it.)

2. It's F2.8-F4 at wide open. If you need to go wider than F4 you can do it. Very low noise too.

3. A one inch sensor is part way between 2/3" and S35. (Unfortunately there are various sizes of S35 sensors.) The slightly smaller than S35 is a little easier to maintain focus, but still gives good bokeh.

4. It's back pack portable and nothing to set up. You get more news if it's easy and fast to shoot. Just keep it on you at all times.

5. You can shoot 4k (UHD actually) or 1080p 422. Most news orgs won't complain about 1080p 422.

6. You can set it to full auto with mostly good results and it will allow you to concentrate on framing.

7. No lighting usually needed. I actually set mine for AE and underexpose half a stop. It preserves the highlights well that way.

That's my way of thinking right now.
Click to expand...


Since you brought up the AX100...
How does the timecode work? Many consumer cameras reset their timecode, or more correctly their counter, after each stop and start. This may be good for home videos, but useless on a pro shoot.
Does the AX100, and it's cousin the PX70, have a usable timecode?
 
Viddovation said:
If you had stated up front that you saw this as a solution for freelancers wishing to use one camera body for multiple shooting styles, then fine. No argument. But you and others have consistently argued that this is a replacement for 2/3" ENG cameras in news organizations. This is where I must strenuously disagree.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry?! Would you like to point out where I have "consistently argued that this is a replacement for 2/3" ENG cameras in news organizations"? Because I cannot see anything I've put which should lead anyone to believe I think that.

In my first post, all I said was: "Accept all that, and with the right ergonomics, there is no technical reason why an s35 camera with B4 lens and adaptor shouldn't rival a conventional 2/3" camera in terms of performance/size/weight/zoom range. True, (because of the single chip nature) it will have a one stop disadvantage - but same would be true of single chip 2/3" such as the HPX600."

In my book, "with the right ergonomics.....rival a conventional 2/3" camera... " is far from "arguing that this is a replacement for 2/3" ENG cameras in news organizations", especially with my also pointing out the undeniable disadvantage (regarding basic sensitivity) of single versus three chip.

All I've been trying to do is dispel some of the FUD and misunderstandings around the whole issue. Try to refute some of the myths which have gained traction regarding why some saw the use of such cameras in traditional 2/3" territory as hopeless. That's a long, long way from arguing they are a general replacement for 2/3", especially within a news organisation. I'm simply saying the gap is not as wide as many think - and there are pros as well as cons.
Mitch Gross said:
There is theory and there is practice, the difference between being a scientist and an engineer. Some theoretical math may say one thing but the practical application thereof can sometimes be different.
Click to expand...
But here the real theory and practice say the same thing - the difference in apparent depth of field with these two formats is about 2.7 stops. But what's important is to get the theory right, and maybe more importantly complete. Take account of all the variables.
 
At the risk of saying something to join the fray, I've observed that videographers fall into two distinct and opinionated groups(well, at LEAST two...:-P). There are the folks who've been around since actual film was cut on a machine; and, those who don't have a long history and are quite open to embracing new technology. I've been around long enough to have listened to arguments that digital will NEVER replace real film.I don't understand why it's so, but, photographers tend to be very conservative around their equipment. Maybe, it's becuase physics just doesn't change. But, there's other forces driving progress.
Honestly, there are so so many old paradigms that people say will never change because of this and because of that, but, basically,the argument is always, "it's always been that way and that way can't possibly change". Well, I think the argument for s35 is reasonable. It's not the current practice, but, apparently even Sony thinks s35 is the next big format to focus their development efforts on. It's a new paradigm. And only time will reveal whether the paradigm shift is real.
If DOF is an issue for ENG, it's quite simple to maintain DOF using cropped sensors and 2/3, B4 or whatever lenses, not to mention aperture. The very fact that there are so many smaller format lenses around, is a good justification to make sensor cropping viable. The F5 is proof that Sony is thinking in these terms.
 
Last edited:
Really?

Where did the broadcast cameras come from?
Yeah - 16mm.

Lusting for S35 is not just DOF.
It's just so much more. It's filmic response in terms of gamma, colour, roll-off and so on.
The modern cameras are sensitive enough to just close your lens 3 stops to have the same DOF
as we had with 2/3" bodies.

I don't want DOF in the first place but a one-man-band aperatus with the sensitivety of modern
cameras and the ability to change lenses and tweak my image in post.
The same camera can also output broadcast ready footage in REC709 10bit - nice.

The "big thing" here is a camera that is small enough to carry all day and operate alone, but it can
give you an image comparable to the "big ones".

All the rest depends just on you.
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
Okay, where's "so much footage" from the FS7 that looks worse than the news?

I have seen 3/4 different shootings, graded + compressed to show up on vimeo/youtube and to be
honest: I can't say anything about the quality this cameras puts out.

1+2) the promo shootings, 1 in HD, 1 in 4k from Den Lennie and Jamea Tonkin:
http://www.fstopacademy.com/blog/shooting-the-sony-pxw-fs7-launch-videos/

some shots by Jason Wingrove:
https://vimeo.com/106461082

and some footage shot by Alistair Chapman:
http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/

one more tests here:
https://vimeo.com/107420890

By the way every camera that has been shot on until today was not final firmware...
Click to expand...

You posted most of it, though you missed this one:

https://vimeo.com/groups/sonyfs7usergroup/videos/106911650

There's an unacceptable amount of noise in Wingrove's film (which I otherwise like) and in the French film, which also has awful colours and the 'video look'. A lot of the colour in the cheese film look plugged, they lack tonality and look unnatural. The evening shots lack dynamic range too, which is a worry. Alister's film looks amateurish. Den's is by far and away the best of the bunch, one can argue about the colour and contrast but the pictures are noise free and have good detail.

I should add, I have ordered this camera, so I'm keen to see some good images from it.
 
Last edited:
I think we'll have few surprises. The FS7 should look just like the F5. No better no worse. I honestly don't expect a better image than my F3 instead it's to get the new features and form factor that makes me waiting in line.
 
If anyone here is under the impression that I don't like the aesthetics of S35, let me please correct the misunderstanding - I love S35 - I have a Sony F3, a Sony F35, a URSA EF, and a set of Arri Ultra Primes. But I think these tools are best designed for controlled storytelling. For narrative, music video, documentary, corporate, commercial, etc.

I think that News organization photo pools are best served by the shoulder mount ENG camera, with it's dedicated form factor and dedicated sensor size and dedicated optics. The notion of replacing an ENG camera with the AX100 is downright silly. It's missing a wealth of features used daily by a professional news shooter, from dedicated hard buttons for features, to XLR inputs, to proper SDI outputs, to a proper viewfinder.

As for the idea that everything will move to large sensors and crop down when needed... why? If I want to buy a rubber mallet, there's no good reason for me to buy a claw hammer and then buy a "rubberizing adapter" to turn said claw hammer into a mallet. I can just buy a mallet in the first place. Horses for courses, and the right tool for the job. S35 isn't appropriate for everything.
 
Osslund said:
I think we'll have few surprises. The FS7 should look just like the F5. No better no worse. I honestly don't expect a better image than my F3 instead it's to get the new features and form factor that makes me waiting in line.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm banking on... ...this is hard for me though, as it is I feel like I'm going over to the dark side buying a Sony, I just need a little more zing from the prototype shooters:-)
 
@Osslund - Agree the F3/FS700/FS7/F5/F55 really more or less have the same look "out of the box" but its the magic in post that is going to make it flourish.

@Liam - I hear you. I just wrote on Sony forums why Canon has so much more going for it than Sony but of course no one there wants to hear it. The fact is the Sony cams are all around really great feature wise and possibly in other areas too and just need some TLC to bring it higher and to the next level.

Anyway, welcome to the dark side.
 
You are right Dennis. It's the post handling of Slog footage that makes the difference. With Slog and the newest Slog3 it takes some time before you know what to do and how to get the good stuff.
 
Viddovation said:
As for the idea that everything will move to large sensors and crop down when needed... why? If I want to buy a rubber mallet, there's no good reason for me to buy a claw hammer and then buy a "rubberizing adapter" to turn said claw hammer into a mallet. I can just buy a mallet in the first place. Horses for courses, and the right tool for the job. S35 isn't appropriate for everything.
Click to expand...

Thinking about this, strictly from a manufacturers point of view, Sony would probably love to stop developing a myriad of different formats and platforms, providing support and workflows for each new platform, as well as supporting legacy platforms. If they could focus their engineering and development on a single platform, how much more technology development could they provide for users/buyers. A single modular sensor box, that is configurable in a variety of ways, might be more cost effective, the C100, C300, C500 platform comes to mind.

Of course, in the end game, it's the user/buyers that define the market. You're quite right about that.
 
It watched this lovely old video shot with the F3 by Jason Wingrove.


As it happens he used the same location when trying the FS7.


I guess the first one was pre Slog on the F3 hence the clipped yellow but they are very different in appearance.

Try running both at the same time and see which one catches your eye.
 
Last edited:
Osslund said:
It watched this lovely old video shot with the F3 by Jason Wingrove.


As it happens he used the same location when trying the FS7.


I guess the first one was pre Slog on the F3 hence the clipped yellow but they are very different in appearance.

Try running both at the same time and see which one catches your eye.
Click to expand...
FS7 piece looks more detailed of course, but I like F3 piece more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top