Sony Affordable 35mm is here, finally! SONY PMW-F3 a 35mm XDCAM EX

[mmm]

I meant to post this earlier but my server has been playing up:
Sony PMW-F3 Announced

I think this camera looks very exciting. It is aimed at a higher end market than the AF100 and has real potential. Limiting the codec to 35Mbps is strange but external recorders are relatively cheap and allow you to choose your own workflow. Compared to the high end like the Alexa, F35 and Epic when it arrives, this camera looks excellent value but Next to the AF100 it looks expensive. Hopefully the street price will be a few grand cheaper than the list prices we are seeing. If the supplied lenses are good and the performance matches the specs, the F3K could make a great package.

My biggest gripe? The ridiculous screw mount that Sony say is the same as on the EX1R. A camera with a PL mount HAS to have 3/8" threads! Surely that's simple!

 

[bwhitz]

Fine, picture only, here's a 5DMII, :shocked:.

Would love to see what that looks like during a whip pan. rogar-Shock(DBG):

Good point. Because we all know that in reality, people look like this...



Thanks for pointing that out BobbyMurcerFan.


But then again, you could be shooting some crazy movies where people wear test charts on their faces... all I know is that when I point it at real people I get images like this... (minus the JPEG web compression)

 

[Steve Castle]

My biggest gripe? The ridiculous screw mount that Sony say is the same as on the EX1R. A camera with a PL mount HAS to have 3/8" threads! Surely that's simple!

I'm actually liking the concept of this mount, basically what is suppose to be a mount with a short FFD (focal flange distance) and a default adapter to a PL. Being that a PL has a FFD of 52mm its not ideal for adapting many lenses (especially if you want to focus to infinity). The new E-mount is a mere 18mm, this PMW-F3 mount should be shorter then 44mm, with a short enough FFD this F3 should be able to adapt any lens thrown at it.

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

bwhitz,

Oh my bad. Now I understand, you have fancied yourself a skilled camera operator and director of photography.

That's why you don't value sound, never found a need for timecode or gen lock, never dealt with rolling shutter or aliasing in post, never had poor formfactor and useability screwup a shoot or get the talent restless. You film in the slow moving soft ivory tower of your mind where there are no geometric shapes or sharp edges that can cut you.

Sorry, I don't live there, which is why what you post sounds foreign to me. Again, my bad.

 

[Barry_Green]

At the core... this camera is about 5-7% better than a T2i on technology standards.

Is this a joke?

bwhitz, have you seen the footage from the F3K? I have, or at least what they said was from the F3K. And it's more like fifty times better than the T2i technology.

On what basis do you state that the F3K is "5 to 7% better" than a T2i??

 

[bwhitz]

bwhitz,

Oh my bad. Now I understand, you have fancied yourself a skilled camera operator and director of photography.

Nope not yet. I don't have one of those pretentious "Director, Cinematographer, Editor" banners on my profile yet...

Is this a joke?

bwhitz, have you seen the footage from the F3K? I have, or at least what they said was from the F3K. And it's more like fifty times better than the T2i technology.

On what basis do you state that the F3K is "5 to 7% better" than a T2i??

No 1080p over 30p and the same color space. It has however, on-board audio, external recording options, and most likley better image IQ... but with no RAW type codec or even 2K it puts it should be right around $4-5k. Oh wait what's that? I guess Panasonic has a reasonably priced and adequately upgraded camera that actually offers features like over-cranking for that price bracket. So why is the Sony $20k? I know all you guys hate DSLRs cause skater-kids can afford them, but what about the AF-100? How does this F3 compare to it? You may not be able to draw the parallels between the DSLRs and the F3 but surely you can see that it's a joke when compared to the AF-100. It's nearly four times the price! And for what... basically just 10-bit output? Camera technology is never going to advance when everyone celebrates Sony with a wussy move like this. Panasonic's AF-100 is realistic. This F3 is a joke.

And yes, in a way I have seen the footage... in the sense that it can't possibly look any better than down-sampled 1080p Red or film footage... since that resolves full 1080p. And with a 4:2:0 25mpbs long-GOP codec (hmm... just like a DSLR?) I don't think it will be that close. I also wouldn't call Red's 1080p footage 50 times better than a T2i... maybe 1.5x better at most. So how can this Sony look 50x better?

 

[Fohdeesha]

How is that kid not banned yet? I've seen him trying to pull this kind of trolling in like 3 different f3 threads now. You're making panasonic fans look bad

 

[bwhitz]

How is that kid not banned yet? I've seen him trying to pull this kind of trolling in like 3 different f3 threads now. You're making panasonic fans look bad

For what voicing my opinion? I've given nothing but props to Panny for the AF-100 and if it's my opinion to compare Sony's new crap box to the T2i then so be it. Or is this forum actually a portal to Germany circa 1942?

BTW, I'm not trolling... I'm just legitimately concerned with the state of the industry when we bash affordable s35mm cameras for the masses and then celebrate when a company know for protecting it's obsolete tech releases a overpriced and underteched piece of gear that's supposed to be advancing large-sensor videography.

And using the word "kid"... come on, please be more pretentious.

This forum is starting to look like Fox news... (Note: I actually watch Fox news, but know that you're probably the type of person that would take offense to that.)

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

bwhitz,

DVXUser is considered pro-Panasonic, but it also has a reputation for being fair to other makers. So when you make wildly off-base posts like the Sony F3 is only 7% better than a T2i, you have to expect people to respond.

I also have to tell you that if you have been in this industry for awhile, you get to meet some of the people responsible for these cameras. So when I read things like "Sony's new crap box," I shudder. As for comparing DVXUser to Nazi Germany, well, I too am surprised that you're still around. But maybe it's late at night and I'm just being overly sensitive.

 

[dcloud]

love reading bwhitz's posts. cracks me up every time.

And yes, in a way I have seen the footage... in the sense that it can't possibly look any better than down-sampled 1080p Red or film footage... since that resolves full 1080p. And with a 4:2:0 25mpbs long-GOP codec (hmm... just like a DSLR?) I don't think it will be that close.

ive shot with the dslrs and all i can say is, it looks good. on shallow DOF shots. nothing more.
anything deep and detailed, turns to sh*T.

 

[vagarob]

Is this a joke?

bwhitz, have you seen the footage from the F3K? I have, or at least what they said was from the F3K. And it's more like fifty times better than the T2i technology.

On what basis do you state that the F3K is "5 to 7% better" than a T2i??

Enough about that kid. Please do tell more Barry

 

[Teodor Miljevic]

I actually find the mix of price and technology a little bit odd. I has got a price that is pretty high to be geared against the superlowbudget moviemaking crowd and when you come into the realm of lowbudget/TV I think the production would be better served by a red or other highend cameras such as the alexa. I also find the marriage of lowweight camera and dual sdi to hdcamsr a very odd combo beacause if you ca afford that route you probably can afford a bigger camera. And on the point of size it is small but not that small that you can't use ccd-based tethered heads (if you go hdcam sr). The only aim I can se for this camera would be as a crash, effectscam and a commando background cam on highend production (to snap highquality backgrounds in citys with expensive permits) which when I write it is quite a big use . With that I'm not saying the picture will be bad it will most definetly be great but I dont think it will be better than red in that case it will be little of a odd bird. The big thing I'm missing if we are in the realm of realistic wishes is the we got 4:2:2 mpeg 2 same as on the new 500cam( some people here are just on another planet when it comes to wanting stuff(I've been around since the time when 24 and 25p was a big selling point. The fact that we didnt makes me suspect that this is a new cam with ex1 guts.
I think 50Mb 4:2:2 would have made this a wonderful one body documentary cam. I think it would have been a better value if the raised the price 2000$ and given us better onboard recording (so we could be without using external recorders) I also think they would have benefitted from developing 50mb encoding so they could roll it out in the next iteration of the ex1 and 3(since we are touching the subject of reusing parts). If canon rolls out a aps-c cam at around 12k it is going to hurt this cam on all markets except the hdcamsr crowd since the fx300 guts allow for better onboard recording. On a side note it vill be a nice rental camera since it's modest price hopefully will make it a cheap rental and under those circumstances it will probably be a steal. As for corporate video and web under the good enough perspective I think af100 would be of better value. If you use nanomini as your main recording device I also think the af100 is the obvious choice. I makes more sense to use those 10k on glass, if you are an independent filmmaker.

bwhitz if you have a hard time seeing difference between t2i and differnt hdcams you either have a bad monitor or little experience (with different codecs and cameras and big budget production (i've only done medium budget stuff in sweden =low budget in the states and already there time with crew and tallent cost a lot more than the camera itself) neither of them bad but beeing aware of it should make you hold of on the worst comments making people label you as a troll. On the web everything looks the same. On a big screen or on a highquality hd-tv it does not. The only way to even have a remote chance to get lowquality codecs to look like professional shoot film is to light the scenes perfectly and bake the look into the recording. If you do grading it starts to fall apart. It can look good but it will never look as good as proper made movie NEVER.(To not start an of topic discussion I'm reffering to highbudget look not gritty movies movies that have had a theatrical release).

 

[paulcurtis]

Incorrect. Its not 1.5 crop factor in the digital cinema world. Its 1.5 crop factor when your comparing to FF still photo lenses. The lenses provided with the higher price unit will have 0 crop factor. Whilst the AF100 has some crop factor when applied correctly to cinema lenses, its still minimal.

Unless i'm having a momentary brain freeze (quite possible), I think you'll find that all lenses are measured to 35mm full frame, the focal length is the focal length.. So lenses still show the effects of crop factor on film (although it's not called that)

Hence S16mm Zeiss primes like 8mm, 16mm etc to give suitable results compared to 35mm lenses. The lenses have a fixed focal length but show different image circle coverage for S16 compared to 35.

Show me some digital cinema lenses that aren't? Even lenses on compact cameras are shown with respect to 35mm full frame.

cheers
paul

 

[Noel Evans]

but with no RAW type codec or even 2K it puts it should be right around $4-5k.

The power of knowledge is a beautiful thing. This camera has S Log.

 

[DavidChia]

Originally Posted by bwhitz
but with no RAW type codec or even 2K it puts it should be right around $4-5k.

The power of knowledge is a beautiful thing. This camera has S Log.

Maybe he doesn't understand what S Log mean or does. Well I don't blame him as he might not be exposed to cameras that are out of his league . That is why he priced it within his league at $4-5k.

 

[mmm]

Originally Posted by mmm
My biggest gripe? The ridiculous screw mount that Sony say is the same as on the EX1R. A camera with a PL mount HAS to have 3/8" threads! Surely that's simple!

I'm actually liking the concept of this mount, basically what is suppose to be a mount with a short FFD (focal flange distance) and a default adapter to a PL. Being that a PL has a FFD of 52mm its not ideal for adapting many lenses (especially if you want to focus to infinity). The new E-mount is a mere 18mm, this PMW-F3 mount should be shorter then 44mm, with a short enough FFD this F3 should be able to adapt any lens thrown at it.

Hi Steve, I meant the 1/4" tripod mounting threads on the bottom. The EX1/3 wobble around all over the place on a tripod. This camera with PL glass will be even worse.

It NEEDS a number of 3/8" screw threads on the bottom. This is a ridiculous oversight on Sony's part.

 

[yoclay]

How is that kid not banned yet? I've seen him trying to pull this kind of trolling in like 3 different f3 threads now. You're making panasonic fans look bad

I don't think he is trolling. I think he is legitimately expressing his opinion, and just as passionately as many others here.
I do think there is a bias towards a camcorder crowd here. It is DVXuser after all.
However, I do believe these cams we are discussing are better. The real question is how much better and is it worth the price differentials?
I hate that phrase "you get what you paid for", because in my 20 years of experience in advertising, mostly you get something only a little bit better at an exponentially higher price. Marketers gleefully rub their hands together every time they hear someone in the public say that. Mostly, it is fashion and a staggered roll-out. So something might be 10-15% better and more dependable, but costs 5X more. Of course when one is on a shoot costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars, paying for that kind of dependability and the added functionality is certainly understandable and certainly cheaper than the potential loss in production costs.
Is the new Sony better than a DSLR? Of course. Imagewise however, is it 10x times better than a Canon or 4x better than an AGF100? Doubtful.

 

[Otis Grapsas]

Slog only makes sense if the codec and pixel quality are good enough. It's for fitting the output of a wide dynamic range imager in a lower precision format while maintaining a degree of ITU-R709 gamma compatibility.

It must be one of their video capable still sensors, NEX-5 etc. A good sensor that gets a very nice performance at ISO300 which would be ISO800 asumming slog and a negative gain option. The 63dB S/N (actually dynamic range) they mention would fit perfectly.

 

[basspig]

Although a small step in the right direction, the single (Beyer?) imager is a *yawn*. What good is dual link SDI 4:4:4 if the imager is 4:2:2 or 4:1:1 by nature of the Beyer filter? Unless it's a 4K sensor being resampled, there's no way to have true 4:4:4 from the sensor that's only 2K luma and less than 1K chroma. For another 8 grand, I could have a RED Epic with a 5K chip, if I were all that thrilled with the dull color rendering of single imagers, which I'm not. Still, it will probably find some type of nitch. Everyone has to have narrow DoF these days. Not like the old days. Casablanca had nearly infinit DoF in most of the scenes. Many classic films did. Spending thousands more and giving up 3-chip color quality, just to have shallow DoF, seems wasted if you ask me.

 

[agcohn]

Although a small step in the right direction, the single (Beyer?) imager is a *yawn*. What good is dual link SDI 4:4:4 if the imager is 4:2:2 or 4:1:1 by nature of the Beyer filter? Unless it's a 4K sensor being resampled, there's no way to have true 4:4:4 from the sensor that's only 2K luma and less than 1K chroma. For another 8 grand, I could have a RED Epic with a 5K chip, if I were all that thrilled with the dull color rendering of single imagers, which I'm not. Still, it will probably find some type of nitch. Everyone has to have narrow DoF these days. Not like the old days. Casablanca had nearly infinit DoF in most of the scenes. Many classic films did. Spending thousands more and giving up 3-chip color quality, just to have shallow DoF, seems wasted if you ask me.

The F35 is a single-chip camera that does 4:2:2 and 4:4:4.