Pmw F5 & F55

Viddovation said:
Given the simple rectangular shape of this camera, I suspect we'll see some 3rd party "cages" that will slide on, and hard mount to the bottom of the camera, and provide a cheeseplate on the top for accessories, including element technica style top handles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see such a handle offered that includes the VF mount point.
Click to expand...

From the hands on thread:

Top handle-- solid metal and attaches firmly. Contains a number of mounting holes which are visible as metal threads set into the holes in the handle. Viewfinder mounts to front hot shoe and there is a top hotshoe.
Click to expand...

So not plasticy at all it seems...

Jason Davenport said:
Solid Camera is all over this one for sure, same with Elements. Can't wait to see what they have.
Click to expand...

I can't wait to see the price either................... (a complete mount for fx the Cineroid costs almost precisely as much as the viewfinder itself. That price cannot be justified...)
 
It sounds like a well built piece of kit. I'm sure the handle is appropriate for the standard configurations Sony has in mind.

That said, we've all seen plenty of heavy rig configurations out there when external attachments add up. If you added a metal cage that secures to the bottom threads then you're putting all the handle stress on the cage, not on the camera frame.
 
Top handle-- solid metal and attaches firmly. Contains a number of mounting holes which are visible as metal threads set into the holes in the handle. Viewfinder mounts to front hot shoe and there is a top hotshoe.
Click to expand...

legrevedotcom said:
So not plasticy at all it seems...
Click to expand...

Yes, I was quite pleased to see that. It looks like plastic in the photos, but great if its metal. I mean you should never pick up a loaded camera just by the handle, but a full rig gets heavy. Plus other items like the EVF will be attached to it.
 
While the F3 handle was prone to breaking, the NewF handle should not experience that kind of breakage. Obviously I would not advise picking up full rigged camera by the handle, but the handle is metal and bolts securely into the body. Also remember that this handle is removable. Think FS-700 but a bit more sturdy.

Ned
 
The top handle looked and felt very solid to me - in fact the whole camera feels like a cut above anything usually from Sony
 
Yep I been asking about that since the ISO's were first announced questioning the true native ISO of the cameras. But its odd for Sony to advertise SLOG2 ISO specs. I also read somewhere that SLOG2 refers to RAW mode so its possible these values reflect RAW mode.

Time will tell.
 
nsoltz said:
The true test will not just be sn ratio but actual images. Yes, I did notice the difference. In specs.

Ned
Click to expand...

starcentral said:
Anyone else dissapointed with the signal to noise ratio on the new F's? Quite lower than found on the F3.
Click to expand...

I suspect we're into a new era where noise reduction is so good that S/N numbers don't mean quite what they used to.

There was a technical review of the F3 where the engineer suspected there was serious noise reduction going on in the F3...and his measurements suggested the real noise level was higher than the spec. I wish I could remember the author or link, somebody just recently linked to it again.

Also, the performance of the FS100 with the same F3 sensor suggests the same thing. Less processing horsepower with same sensor equals more noise and less latitude.

So if Sony is saying 14 stops latitude, but a S/N ratio that is lower than the F3, all I can conclude is that they are using very clever tricks and processing and are simply now reporting things differently.

Similarly, I've also heard loose talk that Arriflex has some tricky things going on in the Alexa to the same ends. Would certainly explain why the thing is so power hungry, it's doing computationally expensive image processing.
 
Last edited:
Nate Weaver said:
I suspect we're into a new era where noise reduction is so good that S/N numbers don't mean quite what they used to.

There was a technical review of the F3 where the engineer suspected there was serious noise reduction going on in the F3...and his measurements suggested the real noise level was higher than the spec. I wish I could remember the author or link, somebody just recently linked to it again.

Also, the performance of the FS100 with the same F3 sensor suggests the same thing. Less processing horsepower with same sensor equals more noise and less latitude.

So if Sony is saying 14 stops latitude, but a S/N ratio that is lower than the F3, all I can conclude is that they are using very clever tricks and processing and are simply now reporting things differently.

Similarly, I've also heard loose talk that Arriflex has some tricky things going on in the Alexa to the same ends. Would certainly explain why the thing is so power hungry, it's doing computationally expensive image processing.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense. These cameras really have to be evaluated as whole packages, sensor tech with processing tech. You maybe right, we are in a new era where paper specs tell us much less that what we can see with out lying eyes!
 
All these suckers with their noisy-as-hell F5s and F55s are going to be mad as all getout when they see me running around with my noiseless F3! :nads:
 
Nate Weaver said:
Also, the performance of the FS100 with the same F3 sensor suggests the same thing. Less processing horsepower with same sensor equals more noise and less latitude.

So if Sony is saying 14 stops latitude, but a S/N ratio that is lower than the F3, all I can conclude is that they are using very clever tricks and processing and are simply now reporting things differently.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It seems fairly clear that the FS100 is essentially crippled in the same way a non-slog F3 is, where several of top-most stops of highlight latitude are simply thrown out. This is unlikely to be connected with horsepower.

As for the S/N question, my initial thought without knowing that much about how they measure S/N is that maybe it is measured on a per-pixel level, so it is inappropriate to compare S/N specs of cameras with different pixel counts/densities. If this is the case, it is completely possible a 4k camera could have more latitude and less noise than a 2.5k camera despite having pixels with a lower S/N spec.
 
morgan_moore said:
Higher res = more smaller pixels = more noise?
Click to expand...

More accurately in a very basic sense and all else being equal:

Higher Res = more smaller pixels = less latitude/sensitivity per pixel but not per sensor

Then again in reality sensor design and processing plays a big role and there are a lot of factors that can affect the relationship between pixel size and noise. There are instances where, for example, a sensor design could use more, smaller pixels decrease the effect of read noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top