Sony F23 FAQ

Good resource. Some of it is also relevant to the F35.

It‘s interesting although not surprising how it totally glosses over Panavision‘s involvement in the project. It goes on to mention how they arrived at the F23‘s form factor by consulting with DPs, camera operators and camera assistants but fail to mention this was most likely done through Panavision. The F23 and F35 even look like a Panaflex. It also boosts how the F23 was different for being the first Sony camera made without feedback from broadcasters and not made to broadcast standards. Again, this is most likely because they were working with Panavision, who was advising Sony. But the way they wrote it reads as if Sony was working alone. It‘s clear the F23 and Genesis are the result of the same project, as is the F35.

Because of these omissions, I would think much of the information was taken from Sony‘s promotional material. From a marketing perspective the omissions are not surprising. After all Panavision did the very same in trying to avoid mentioning Sony as much as they could. Not a big deal.

But I‘m wondering if some of the information on this F23 FAQ page was erroneously taken from F35 promotional or technical material. Because they mention the F23‘s dynamic range as being beyond 12.5 stops with S-Log. That is wrong. But the F35 has been promoted as a 12 stops camera. It‘s obvious this F23 FAQ was written after the F35 had been released, since the F35 is mentioned at least once. So maybe they mixed it up.

The F23 has less dynamic range than the F35. Sony‘s official figure for the F35 is 11 stops in some materials and beyond 12 stops in others.

F35_more_than_12_stops_of_Dynamic_Range.png


Which is why I wonder if they confused the F35 figures with the F23‘s. While the F35 has been advertised as a 12 stops camera, I have never seen the F23 being advertised as such. The F23 was always said to be a 10 stops camera, like the Genesis. Although I would not doubt you can squeeze 11 stops out of it. Sony was conservative when publishing the figures for the F35. So I would guess they could have done the same with the F23. The F35 is easily capable of 13 stops, despite of what the marketing materials say.

Since I know for a fact the F35 has more dynamic range, if the F23 indeed is capable of 12.5+ stops, that would mean the F35 is capable of around 15+ stops. But I know that is not really the case with the F35. So I‘m pretty sure the dynamic range figures on this F23 FAQ page is not accurate for the F23. They probably indeed mixed it up with F35 data.

The F35 can do 13+ stops in reality. But 15+ stops would be certainly beyond it.

If you set it side by side with an Alexa you will see they both hold the highlights very similarly with the Alexa only seeing more into the darks. The dynamic range difference is basically all in the shadows. But the Alexa uses in camera noise reduction and the F35 uses none. They have about the same number of stops above key. How many stops the F35 has bellow key depends on how tolerant you are of grain or if you want to clean it up in post. If you clean your shadows in post the F35 can even match the Alexa.
 

Attachments

  • F35 more than 12 stops of Dynamic Range.jpg
    F35 more than 12 stops of Dynamic Range.jpg
    12.7 KB · Views: 3
DP Alfonso Parra's careful testing concludes the F23 to 10 stops which he describes as conservative in order to get high quality image. Maybe someone else would push that to 10.5 or 11 but 12 stops would seem not to be the case from going over his paper.
 
I guess in terms of dynamic range it all comes down to measuring method and interpretation and what one would accept as usable.
I think it's fair to say that both F23 and F35 still hold their own and blow many modern cameras out of the water in terms of IQ... exactly the reason why I want to get one.

Also tending to a F23 (or F900R) to make use of the variety of high grade zooms that can be had for a reasonable price... great tools for event, conventions and a lot of other work.
 
Between the F23 and F900R I would take F23 in heartbeat. It shouldn't cost that much more and has an improved optical block and signal processor.
 
So I've heard but I would like to see a comparison... I have no way to rent either camera, no rental house carries them here anymore.
In terms of practicality I would tend to buy a F900 for easy shoulder mount shooting vs improved IQ of the F23.. tough call.
 
If shoulder mounting is a concern, you might want to consider the 9000 PL. its more or less the late model F35 built into a broadcast form factor, and can typically be hand for 1/2 the price of an F35 cause no one really knows wtf it is. IIRC they also made the 9000 as a B4 variant, which is probably the last itteration of the F9xx series (though if someone knows more please correct me).

I would say avoid an original F900 like the plague. sucker was 8bit, and its picture is borderline laughable per todays standards. Even the F950 was an enormous improvement, which added true 422 ability and hdcam SR compatibility. The quickest common comparison is star wars ep 2 (F900) vs ep 3 (F950). The F23 would outperform either of those, and the F35 / 9000PL will leap beyond those.

Fair point about the glass though. I'd bet you could get a complete set of digiprimes for half the price of a good pl zoom lens
 
I agree. That R makes a big difference. And F900 is NOT a native 1080 sensor but upscaled to 1080. To be avoided is good advise.
 
Last edited:
I am specifically looking for 2/3" sensor, makes more sense and easier to work with for conferences etc. and have great zooms with big range. I couldn't afford a decent range zoom for S35.

F900R would be my choice. I've shot a lot on F800 years ago and really liked the overall weight and handling. SRW series should be heavier and definitely much more expensive than a F900R so will see.
 
youngindiefilms said:
I am specifically looking for 2/3" sensor, makes more sense and easier to work with for conferences etc. and have great zooms with big range. I couldn't afford a decent range zoom for S35.

F900R would be my choice. I've shot a lot on F800 years ago and really liked the overall weight and handling. SRW series should be heavier and definitely much more expensive than a F900R so will see.
Click to expand...

Just so you know the one I posted is a 2/3" sensor.
 
I like to see F23 on someone shoulder :) (with recorder, lens and battery)
that thing is design for Oconor 2575 and 150mm bowl tripod
 
That was my rig, in the end I couldn't let it go so I still have most of it but replaced the shoulder kit with a more economical one. You can shoulder it but it is heavy and wears on you after a bit. If you are using a viewfinder it limits how far back you can balance it on your shoulder causing it to be front heavy. Using the odyssey as the recorder you would want to put the IF box and battery on the rear to balance out the weight, even so it will still be front heavy and tires out your arms quickly. The codex is better the added weight to the rear helps balance it out putting the weight more over your shoulders. Surprizingly the SRW-1 is the most comfortable even though it is the heaviest. The weight and size of it balances it quite nicely even with a Cooke 20-100 on the front. It spares your arms but you will feel the result of the weight of it the next day. I now use a battery belt with it to reduce the weight on the shoulders a little bit, when its upwards of 50 lbs every little bit helps.
 
Yes that is a foton. The front is a kowa 16h in a rectilux single focus enclosure. It only port holed a little on the wide end if cropping to 2.4:1.
 
Unfortunately I lost them all. I never shoot a project with it only test footage. As a result I stored it on a back up drive, that drive dies not long ago. Unfortunately I don't have these lenses anymore. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top