Pricing F5 F55

sebben said:
Yes, I agree on all fronts. However, does it really need to be a factor of 7 - 8 times more expensive?

I say no.

This is probably the last chance for sony to bring the walkman of cameras.
http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2012/06/05/can-sony-be-saved-stock-near-32-year-low/
Click to expand...

Couple points -

1. Your article is from June. Here's one from two weeks ago with an updated (and more optimistic) outlook: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-maintaining-profit-forecast-tokyo-mover.html
2. You'll notice the massive losses for Sony are from their consumer television division. The Professional Broadcast unit isn't hemorrhaging money.
3. A professional broadcast camera isn't a Walkman or an iPod. Most people are happy with the picture on their iPhone. You're never going to sell that sort of volume of a professional camera.
 
okay.. just playing around... a BMC costs $3,000 was trying to add up features on the F55 which would increase the price... and I'm sure I'm missing a few... so far I came up the camera should be $22,500 then...

Just adding up just six reasons (I thought of the 7th reason as I started writing this) why it should cost more than the BMC... and I came up with $19,500.. lol I'd be happy to get an F55 for that much...


1. $3,000 4k
2. $3,000 120fps
3. $3,000 global shutter
4. $3,000 F65 color
5. $3,000 form factor, uses of different lens, able to use a new batt, other minor things...
6. $1,500 ND's
7.$3,000 240fps when 2k hits...

+ $3,000 BMC (have to throw in the cost of that camera also)

$22,500

so add a few minor things... evf, card... maybe I can get it for 25k... no raw recorder... I'd be happy recording to the camera for now...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
okay.. just playing around... a BMC costs $3,000 was trying to add up features on the F55 which would increase the price... and I'm sure I'm missing a few... so far I came up the camera should be $22,500 then...

Just adding up just six reasons (I thought of the 7th reason as I started writing this) why it should cost more than the BMC... and I came up with $19,500.. lol I'd be happy to get an F55 for that much...


1. $3,000 4k
2. $3,000 120fps
3. $3,000 global shutter
4. $3,000 F65 color
5. $3,000 form factor, uses of different lens, able to use a new batt, other minor things...
6. $1,500 ND's
7.$3,000 240fps when 2k hits...

+ $3,000 BMC (have to throw in the cost of that camera also)

$22,500

so add a few minor things... evf, card... maybe I can get it for 25k... no raw recorder... I'd be happy recording to the camera for now...
Click to expand...

I would add another 3K for s35 sensor versus BMC sensor. I have no problem with BMC sensor but s35 really is perfect for my Zeiss Zf set.

Oh and low light. That's huge... I'd happily pay another 3K for BMC to get low light of F5.

In fact if the BMC could come with global shutter and low light of the F55 I would happily pay about 12k for that. (at the least)

Oh if it had high frame rates then 15K...

So geting close to F5 prices although it does not have global shutter I'm sure it's much better than BMC. Just need to see F5 image to compare to BMC.
 
I dare say global shutter is worth a good deal more than $3000. It is the holy grail for digital filmmaking and no other cmos camera does it right now. The above estimated figures seem entirely arbitrary to me.
If the BMC came with a global shutter and the low light sensitivity of the F55, it wouldn't be the BMC camera. It would be a sony camera.
All this wishful thinking has nothing to do with reality.
 
yoclay said:
I dare say global shutter is worth a good deal more than $3000. It is the holy grail for digital filmmaking and no other cmos camera does it right now. The above estimated figures seem entirely arbitrary to me.
If the BMC came with a global shutter and the low light sensitivity of the F55, it wouldn't be the BMC camera. It would be a sony camera.
All this wishful thinking has nothing to do with reality.
Click to expand...

Hey just a bit of fun. Just trying to think through what various features are worth it for myself in order to contemplate whether a step up to f5 is worth it. People think through things in different ways.
 
That was fun!

Now make it 10K!
1. $2,000 2k S35
2. $2,000 120fps
3. $3,000 global shutter
4. $1,000 F65 color
5. $1,000 form factor, uses of different lens, able to use a new batt, other minor things...
6. $1000 ND's

It's almost a f700!
 
sebben said:
That was fun!

Now make it 10K!
1. $2,000 2k S35
2. $2,000 120fps
3. $3,000 global shutter
4. $1,000 F65 color
5. $1,000 form factor, uses of different lens, able to use a new batt, other minor things...
6. $1000 ND's

It's almost a f700!
Click to expand...

Suggesting the F55 sell for $10k is insulting IMHO.
 
Well, the ikonoskop which is now 3 or 4 years old does. And you would expect technology to get faster, better and cheaper in that time frame. Especially if it is made by a huge multinational like sony, not just some indy company like ikonoskop, red or black magic.

I dont really understand why people are so intent to defend the price of these cameras. Do you guys not want cheaper, better disruptive technology? Common! budgets and day rates have been slashed across the board. Surely cameras can come down as well.

So we have three raw cameras under 10k.
1. Scarlet (4k)
2. Ikonoskop (Global shutter)
3. BMC (2.5k)

And sony or canon are unable to compete!? Maybe ND filters really are the most expensive part!
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing that just the ASICs (reading from the sensor, sending to storage, sending to HDMI, sending to 3G-SDI, probably doing some encoding as well, etc...) cost around $8k - $10k.
 
sebben said:
Well, the ikonoskop which is now 3 or 4 years old does. And you would expect technology to get faster, better and cheaper in that time frame. Especially if it is made by a huge multinational like sony, not just some indy company like ikonoskop, red or black magic.

I dont really understand why people are so intent to defend the price of these cameras. Do you guys not want cheaper, better disruptive technology? Common! budgets and day rates have been slashed across the board. Surely cameras can come down as well.

So we have three raw cameras under 10k.
1. Scarlet (4k)
2. Ikonoskop (Global shutter)
3. BMC (2.5k)

And sony or canon are unable to compete!? Maybe ND filters really are the most expensive part!
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow.

First - let's be clear - the Ikonoskop is a 16mm CCD sensor. We could have a very long discussion indeed on why you're comparing apples to pork chops (forget oranges!).

The nature of CCD sensors essentially makes them all global shutter (or at least in practice). It's not a big achievement, and there are expired patents to review for that sort of technology.

Second, CCD sensors require a lot more power than CMOS sensors. Moving from a 16mm sensor to a 35mm sensor in CCD means a lot more power consumption.

Third, CCD sensors have their own downsides. Remember the old vertical streaks whenever a bright light source was on screen? Unpleasant.

And fourth, you ask if we want cheaper disruptive technology... and I for one don't. I want healthy stable innovation and progress. Competition is what brings prices down. And it's working.

Honestly, if you love the Blackmagic Camera, just buy one. Sony's going to set their own prices based on their own costs - which, I might remind you - includes research and development.
 
sebben said:
Well, the ikonoskop which is now 3 or 4 years old does. And you would expect technology to get faster, better and cheaper in that time frame. Especially if it is made by a huge multinational like sony, not just some indy company like ikonoskop, red or black magic.

I dont really understand why people are so intent to defend the price of these cameras. Do you guys not want cheaper, better disruptive technology? Common! budgets and day rates have been slashed across the board. Surely cameras can come down as well.

So we have three raw cameras under 10k.
1. Scarlet (4k)
2. Ikonoskop (Global shutter)
3. BMC (2.5k)

And sony or canon are unable to compete!? Maybe ND filters really are the most expensive part!
Click to expand...

The irony of what you are suggesting is that it almost makes it sounds like you think it would be preferable to spend even more money to own 5 different cameras that have different strengths than it would be to own one camera that does everything you need. Personally I'd rather own one, especially since sometimes you need 4k and high framerates or 4k and global shutter, which none of those options will ever give you at the same time... Sometimes it is exponentially more expensive to implement certain features together in one product.
 
No beef guys, :Drogar-Happy(DBG): it's just my opinion that I think cameras should be cheaper and that sony should be able to build them cheaper if there is the will.

I would really like an F55. In most ways its perfect. Global shutter, good iso and color performance, good form factor, and decent 2k all in one camera! (On paper anyway) I just wont be able to buy one, because my clients wont pay those sort of rates.

I am surprised that everybody is so willing to defend the pricing though. I wonder if we were talking about medical heart valves being manufactured for 8€ a piece and sold to hospitals for 900€ a piece if you guys would have the same opinion. I don't think Sony's or JVC's margins are that good though
cheesy.gif


Or is it just that the professionals want to keep the "good" quaility cameras out of the hands of ametuers and students in case they keep nipping away jobs and clients?
 
Last edited:
sebben said:
I would really like an F55. In most ways its perfect. Global shutter, good iso and color performance, good form factor, and decent 2k all in one camera! (On paper anyway) I just wont be able to buy one, because my clients wont pay those sort of rates.
Click to expand...

Simple - start charging more and recruit clients with deeper pockets. I've found the clients who pay the least are also frequently the ones who work you the hardest. "Grinders" as we call them.
 
Well, in my case its more about freedom. Rather than prescription.

I'm just cranky because I am editing a film and having to deal with a lot of 5D rolling shutter issues.

Mainstream global shutters for everybody!
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
okay.. just playing around... a BMC costs $3,000 was trying to add up features on the F55 which would increase the price... and I'm sure I'm missing a few... so far I came up the camera should be $22,500 then...

Just adding up just six reasons (I thought of the 7th reason as I started writing this) why it should cost more than the BMC... and I came up with $19,500.. lol I'd be happy to get an F55 for that much...


1. $3,000 4k
2. $3,000 120fps
3. $3,000 global shutter
4. $3,000 F65 color
5. $3,000 form factor, uses of different lens, able to use a new batt, other minor things...
6. $1,500 ND's
7.$3,000 240fps when 2k hits...

+ $3,000 BMC (have to throw in the cost of that camera also)

$22,500

so add a few minor things... evf, card... maybe I can get it for 25k... no raw recorder... I'd be happy recording to the camera for now...
Click to expand...

Don't forget the BMCC incorporates no OLPF for image capture, so you will need to add some $ to the BMC for some creative solution there.

The BMC is not super35mm. This may or may not matter to you, but if you want to use cine primes then a S35 based camera is probably more along the lines of what you would want to shoot with without turning a 35mm lens in +70mm (compared to s35 not FF).
 
Also note that BMC has no audio meters and no phantom power.

We're talking two very different types of products.
 
Who wants the ratal rate of a $3000 camera? $150 a day vs $650 or $750. Guess you guys are cool with staying in a a apartment......:)
 
Do you guys rent out your gear?

I wouldn't rent a $20k+ camera to someone for $750 a day so that I can pick up the repair bill in the end...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top