Price on Sony F5 and F55 After the Red Price Drop

Admit One said:
Canon has a $3K loyalty program for existing C300 owners purchasing a C500:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/855975-REG/Canon_EOS_C500_Cinema_EOS.html

Cheers.
Click to expand...


Just in case anybody missed this:

SonyLoyaltyBlurb.png
 
starcentral said:
Yes we would all love for it to only be 10k but let's be realistic:


The FS100 is $5k
The FS700 is $9k
The F3 is 14k
The F5 / F55 ???
The F65 is 80k

As you can clearly see the product line and feature set, the F5 will never be priced $1000 above the FS700 and below the F3. The F3 still has a very strong place in the market - don't forget, we are broadcasting HD right now not 4k which makes the F3 a very ideal camera plus its a super 35mm sensor.
Click to expand...

Sure, this makes sense in the current status quo. What I am talking about is change. Which means 4k should be cheaper than the Sony F3, that is what innovation and progress is about. Not maintaining old power structures. We are entering an age where everybody is swapping cameras out every year or so. To maintain this market need the prices must drop.

Having said this. I agree with you. Sony will be boring and these cameras will cost a small fortune. And in the end, we all loose and sony might just end up bankrupt after all.
http://247wallst.com/2012/11/01/sony-no-sign-of-a-turnaround/
 
Last edited:
There might be some hope that Sony will keep the price "affordable." According to FDTimes, F3 sales may have approached six figures worldwide. If true, sales would have approached $1 billion or more. That's a heck of a lot of cameras and money. So if Sony is now comfortable with how big this market can be, they might be willing to set a lower price and go for more volume.

FDTimes said:
Two months after IBC 2010, Alec officially introduced the PMW-F3 on the lofty 35th floor of Sony’s Madison Avenue headquarters in New York. “Affordable” was an understatement. The camera was priced around $16,000. Unofficial sources suggest that since then, sales of the F3 approach 6 digits worldwide.
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.fdtimes.com/2012/10/30/sony-f55-and-f5/
 
sebben said:
Sure, this makes sense in the current status quo. What I am talking about is change. Which means 4k should be cheaper than the Sony F3, that is what innovation and progress is about. Not maintaining old power structures. We are entering an age where everybody is swapping cameras out every year or so. To maintain this market need the prices must drop.

Having said this. I agree with you. Sony will be boring and these cameras will cost a small fortune. And in the end, we all loose and sony might just end up bankrupt after all.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the movie "The Corporation" yet?
 
Be a game changer sony. We all want you to be. Lower the prices on some of your current models and beat red's pricing with these new cams and the market is yours. Plain and simple.
 
Ryan Lightbourn said:
Agreed...if the body-only comes out at $20k+ I think the Epic-X will be my next camera. It's gonna be pricey to shoot raw with these things & I'd love to have the option of 300fps.
Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts too and here's something I've been saying for the past few weeks that no one has really been echoing.

If you have an "all-in RAW capable" camera (yes like a RED) then you can throw on any 1080p ext. recorder on it now and shoot whatever codec flavour you like. No need to diss ProRes, DNx, etc.. just use whichever one you want. End the bickering, end the war.

Then later on as 3rd party 4k recorders come down in price and you decide you want to record 4k with some flavour codec - no problem, buy or rent one. And for all the time while you CAN'T afford it (like a Gemini 4k RAW recorder for $9k) + plus media ($1500 for 512MB = 30 minutes RAW 4k) then just shoot RAW in-camera since it can already do it and transcode your footage on your computer for FREE until your situation changes.

^ In all this sense, Sony is backwards and you are paying Sony for THEIR 4k codec in-camera and paying even more to shoot RAW outside... strange.
 
starcentral said:
...and transcode your footage on your computer for FREE until your situation changes.
Click to expand...

I've been there when I had my R1. It's fun for a while. Eventually you (or at least I did) pine for something that's less work. Not every job is worth putting up with it for. There were a few cases where 4K was definitely a race against the clock/causation for really clever shortcuts in the post schedule. If you go Red-only, you'll have one eventually too, I guarantee. A Redrocket is not a cure-all.

starcentral said:
In all this sense, Sony is backwards and you are paying Sony for THEIR 4k codec in-camera and paying even more to shoot RAW outside... strange.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd say there's probably a market for it. Some people are ok with having to transcode every job, and the money is there to pay people to do it for you when you don't want to.

After doing the 4K thing from 2008 to 2010, and STILL never delivering anything above 4K (once, and only once, I delivered 4K DPXs for Red's 2009 NAB reel), I grew tired of it. There were a few motion graphics jobs I DPd that needed 4K for post repos, but maybe 3 at most over 2 years.

Anyway, my only point is that I think there's a market for having 1080/2K easy and 4K being the extra expense.
 
Nate Weaver said:
After doing the 4K thing from 2008 to 2010, and STILL never delivering anything above 4K (once, and only once, I delivered 4K DPXs for Red's 2009 NAB reel), I grew tired of it. There were a few motion graphics jobs I DPd that needed 4K for post repos, but maybe 3 at most over 2 years.

Anyway, my only point is that I think there's a market for having 1080/2K easy and 4K being the extra expense.
Click to expand...

Yes true, good points. I'm still wrestling my thoughts back and forth, trying to figure out which way is up for me.
 
HDTVs tend to have composite video inputs and can upscale and cross scale. It's silly to think that consumer UltraHD television sets won't accept lower quality signals in a variety of standards. The obvious advantage of 4k acquisition is that even if your current distribution is only SD/HD, you'll be able to rerelease in the higher quality format when the market is ready.
 
Viddovation said:
HDTVs tend to have composite video inputs and can upscale and cross scale. It's silly to think that consumer UltraHD television sets won't accept lower quality signals in a variety of standards. The obvious advantage of 4k acquisition is that even if your current distribution is only SD/HD, you'll be able to rerelease in the higher quality format when the market is ready.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Jarred's statement is somewhat misleading. He said "The Consumer Electronics Association has finally laid down the UHD 4K rules for Displays... and they don't take kindly to anything below 3840 x 2160.. In fact.. they don't allow it."

In the CEA's press release, the exact wording is:

Minimum performance attributes include display resolution of at least eight million active pixels, with at least 3,840 horizontally and at least 2,160 vertically. Displays will have an aspect ratio with width to height of at least 16 X 9. To use the Ultra HD label, display products will require at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native 4K format video from this input at full 3,840 X 2,160 resolution without relying solely on up-converting.
Click to expand...

So for a display to carry the Ultra HD label, it has to have at least one native Ultra HD digital input. That makes sense. But it doesn't forbid accepting lower resolutions. It would be crazy to sell a display that can't accept other formats.
 
I'd say those are both slightly subjective, I would put MX at 13 (with a half stop of noise that can easily be cleaned up), and considering it does no noise reduction on it a pass of neat video does miracles with red files. It was funny other people had convinced me my camera sucked at low light until I finally ran some underexposed material through neat video and could not believe my eyes. But that is just from testing it myself against my other cameras and my eye's so who knows?

but then again I have more time to tinker with projects and I'm able to have a hand in each level of corrections so it's a little different working style than most so I understand why it's not for some. but spreading rumors around just because it's not for you never made sense to me. though it's sadly true of plenty of redusers who feel it is fair to spread fud and rumors about other cameras all the while getting upset when others do it to them.

sometimes just drives me nuts, WHY CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!.... sorry for yelling

have a good one!
 
Piolet said:
So for a display to carry the Ultra HD label, it has to have at least one native Ultra HD digital input. That makes sense. But it doesn't forbid accepting lower resolutions. It would be crazy to sell a display that can't accept other formats.
Click to expand...

More importantly, it's talking about the minimum resolution of the DISPLAYs, of the screens themselves, not the content they'll be able to play. Standard Definition and regular-old High Definition will play on these new displays just fine. With no less quality than they currently display on 1080p screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top