Sony NEX-FS100 with Super 35mm CMOS image sensor

Nigel-Cooper said:
pulpfiction007, I didn't get chance to do chart tests or shoot footage with all the gamma curves and other paint menu settings. I only had the camera for two days. I spent an hour going though the menu tweaking the edge detail and colours just to get a pleasing image from the camera; and it does produce a nice clean image with hardly any noticeable aliasing. In fact it is quite hard to see the aliasing on a chart, and charts are unforgiving. In the real world, aliasing is almost non-existant on the FS100.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the response. It's good to know they're included as well as the detail functions, etc. Those things being left out would be a bad move...Sony's taken them off fairly expensive cameras before though, so I had to wonder.
 
Nigel, I was kind of amazed at how your review dared to tell it like it is. Not many people have the balls to do this anymore. Thanks!
 
Really wonder how many pixels are used for recording a video?
Is it 1920x1080 or picture is downscaled from some 2K resolution because there are used "3,370,000 effective pixels for recording pictures in 16:9 mode" which is 1.7x more than for native full HD ?
 
Nigel,
I appreciate you coming to this thread after your review to "face the music," so to speak, and share your impressions. The more I hear about this camera - good and bad - the more I want to try one out myself.
 
I'm getting dizzy from reading 4 threads at once about this camera. Can't the mods combine them all into the oldest and longest one?
 
Respectfully, I think Mr. Nigel Cooper is approaching this camera from an "old school" world in which a camera isn't a camera if you can't sling it over your shoulder and strain your back with it.

For the HDSLR generation this two-palm thing is going to fit right in -- and despite the defensive AF100 owners in this thread -- this camera is going to be a big deal. It's the lower noise, clean images coming off that F3 sensor in a Fisher-Price body that's going to have this Sony back-ordered while the AF100 is conveniently in-stock.

The bigger issue is that I, the target market of both the new Sony and Af100, can have two 5Dm2 (and, yes, soon "m3") bodies for the price of one of these -- and I get better quality audio (and more options) from decent external audio recorders.
 
AGMedia said:
Respectfully, I think Mr. Nigel Cooper is approaching this camera from an "old school" world in which a camera isn't a camera if you can't sling it over your shoulder and strain your back with it.

For the HDSLR generation this two-palm thing is going to fit right in -- and despite the defensive AF100 owners in this thread -- this camera is going to be a big deal. It's the lower noise, clean images coming off that F3 sensor in a Fisher-Price body that's going to have this Sony back-ordered while the AF100 is conveniently in-stock.

The bigger issue is that I, the target market of both the new Sony and Af100, can have two 5Dm2 (and, yes, soon "m3") bodies for the price of one of these -- and I get better quality audio (and more options) from decent external audio recorders.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked external recorders aren't free :) Now, you may have one, but comparing apples to apples it still is another cost some people have to endure. I bought a $1k external recorder and I am SO GLAD I don't have to use it anymore. I think the quality of the audio on the AF100 is fantastic, and I should know a thing or two about good converters, I own an Apogee Rosetta 200 and usually have a Blue Kiwi Mic hooked into it. Those two pieces along, along with my Focusrite ISA220 preamp surpass the cost of the AF100 or FS100 by at least $1k.

But regardless, the reason two 5Dm2 won't matter to me (or other Canon cameras) is that I am sick and tired of the colored moire/aliasing. I have no faith in Canon that the m3 bodies won't suffer the same problem. Just like the 7D, t2i, 60D, t3i. They don't seem to care about fixing it yet. I'm tired of the 720p60 that is just really horrible. I am tired of the slow read/reset times on ALL the Canons (with the 5D being slower than the 7D even). I have an AF100 and it is SO much better than the 7D and 5D *FOR ME*. I am here about the FS100 because there are a lot of things about it I *REALLY* like. Do I plan on getting my hands on one to compare to my AF100, you betcha. I don't care who makes the camera, I just want my job to get easier. Plain and simple.

Honestly, it doesn't matter if you come from old school or new school, or whatever school. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether a product fulfills the needs of the user. I've listened to *MANY* people bash the 7D on every cinematography forum for EVERY reason, yet, I still used it up until recently because it did what I needed for the cost point I was at, and it did it damn fine. I have different requirements. You have different requirements. As far as I can see, we are all valid in our opinions.
 
i really like the form factor, i imagine the hasselblad waist level style of shooting to get steady results if you press it into your gut, and as the video mentioned, it won't be as obvious your filming when your doing it somewhere prohibited.

another thing to consider is the reason many professional photographers prefer this style of shooting, because it allows you to engage better with the subject, takes the lens/viewfinder away from your eye and face, allowing you to work on your connection with your model (or in this case the actors, or interviewee etc)
I think this may be a very important aspect for very small productions where the camera operator and director are the same person.

the only negative that i see is the same negative that prevails in basically all industry, these are throw away items that are planned to be replaced, even if the af100 has better build quality it still fits into the same category. every year thousands of these things are made, and in 50 years they will all be complete rubbish that doesn't work. hopefully in 50 years time we'll still be able to use film cameras made 50 years ago!!
It would be really awesome if these companies started to make products designed to be upgraded rather than replaced. At least with these large sensor digitals, we're no longer manufacturing lenses which can't be reused/recycled.

sorry about the preachy environment rant, but someones gotta say these things.
 
I agree with you.

I rather like the form factor. It reminds me of my old Bronica GS1.

And plus 1000 on the want/need of somecamera maker the make a camera body with replaceable sensors and processor so we can truly upgrade and not dump the whole camera.


For me build quality at this price range is a big concern.
The only attachment I would use would be the mic and MAYBE the clip on view finder, maybe.
The build quality of the camera body and the mic need to be pretty good for me.

Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
TheDingo, thank you, yes I agree. I'm getting a few 'hate' emails from people. One guy upset because he thinks the physical size of the sensor in the FS100 is the same size as the one in the Canon EOS 5D MK2 and he was shouting crap at me because I said he was wrong about the imager size. However, 90% of the emails I'm receiving about my review are along the lines of "Well Done", "About time, a genuine review" etc.

Rick, I wasn't particularly looking for rolling shutter, having the camera for just a short time. However, I just looked at some of the panning shots in the footage I shot (see the still of the cafe at the foot of the review, that was grabbed mid-pan) and I can't see anything. But they where only pans, not tilts and they where at a slow to moderate pace. Faster pans/tilts might be different, perhaps somebody else can test for that.

vanvideo, Yes, I totally second that. Sony think that my somewhat negative review (not negative on image quality I might add) will affect sales, but you are right, it just makes customers want to go and try it for themselves and if you are used to using an EX1 you will probably be happy with the FS100. Yes, I am a little scared of posting, I expect to be shot down in flames because of it, but so far I'm suppressed at how perfectly diplomatic and gentlemanly the DVXuser members are.

AGMedia. I appreciate what you are saying. To clarify where I am coming from in my review. I bought a Canon EOS 5D MK2 when it first came out, but after a short while sold it on eBay as I felt the aliasing made it unusable for any serious work; that's just me though. I understand other people are happy to try and work around this.

If you are used to using a DSLR and then move over to a Sony FS100, of course it will 'fit right in", in a similar way to if you are used to having a 1970's Space Hopper for your form of transport, a Tesco's shopping trolly will 'fit right in', but that doesn't make the shopping trolly a BMW now does it? The AF101 is of similar form-factor, but it doesn't have the issues of the FS100 i.e. the AF101 has a handle at the top that you can hold, the Sony has a plastic bar about 3 inches long with a hole in the middle that makes it difficult to hold and it is back heavy. The AF101 has larger buttons and switches that just 'work' how they should on a smaller form-factor camcorder. Just little things like this make the AF101 a superior camcorder, but I admit, the image quality of the Sony is a little cleaner with slightly less aliasing.

The reason Hassleblads, Mamiya's and Bronica's had waist level viewfinders is simply down to the way proper portraiture should be taken. If you are photographing a wedding for example and taking a full-length shot of the bride, the camera's lens must be at the same level as the the brides waist. If you took a full-length shot with the camera at head-hight it gives a different perspective and makes the bride look like she has a big head and small feet, at waist level she and her body proportions are correct. If you take a head-and-shoulders picture of a person, the camera should be held level with the subjects neck. Group shots require the camera lens to be at waist hight to the subject for correct perspective.

If you hold an FS100 at waist height during an interview of a person, you will simply get that horrible 'up-the-nose' shot that is unprofessional. Video works different to photography in this instance. During video, we are 'talking' to the interviewee, during photography we are 'looking' at a picture so the perspectives have to be different for both. Waist level footage shot from a camcorder will simply make everybody look very tall and dominant.

I agree with your sentiments themagickite and Hidef1080. Even though we won't be using these cameras 20 years from now, that is no excuse for manufacturers to build them in a way that they would probably not last that long anyway.

I personally use whatever camcorder get's the job done, be it a budget ($6,000) camcorder, or a higher end HDCAM or DigiBeta. But, $7,000 is still a lot of money to some people, not everyone can afford $25,000 on a camcorder. And for me, $7,000 still represents a decent chunk of ones salary and I for one expect the build quality to be pretty good at that kind of price range.
 
Great and very informative review Nigel. Add me to the 90% that were pleased to read it "how it is".... without the gloss. The real truth always emerges eventually anyway. Ah well, maybe they will fix all the key design/poor build issues for a FS200 perhaps in 2012! (we can only hope!)
 
andykwilkinson said:
Great and very informative review Nigel. Add me to the 90% that were pleased to read it "how it is".... without the gloss. The real truth always emerges eventually anyway. Ah well, maybe they will fix all the key design/poor build issues for a FS200 perhaps in 2012! (we can only hope!)
Click to expand...

Bear this in mind - all of you - Nigel's review is his opinion. Den Kennie 's review was far more positive. I'm sure he was telling it "how it is." as well - without the gloss. Den liked the fit and finish on the FS100, calling it as good as the EX1. Who is correct? The answer - both of them. Use the reviews as a guide, not as gospel.

As you say, the real truth willl indeed emerge, when we all can get our hands on one ourselves. Will the handles fit securely? We'll find out. Are the buttons too small? We'll all know soon enough. Is the AF100 a better camera for the money? One reviewer says yes, one says no.
Is it going to be worth what the merchants will charge? Will it fulfill your professional needs? That, my friends, is the big decision you get to make.

And again, thanks to the reviewers for sharing their experiences with us - those lucky bastards!
 
Nigel,

Great review; learned a lot about the camera. It looks interesting. Without holding it and shooting with it, I really can't tell what I will think of it. The lack of ND filters is a strange one. One item you left out was whether the lens was truly a video lens or a still lens adapted for video use. One of the missing pieces for the AF100 is a run and gun type lens with a constant f stop and ability to zoom in, focus and then zoom out and have the lens stay in focus. Whether it auto focuses, I could care less, as I was brought up on HL-79s (remember those $35 cameras...had two of them and still have one that still works! Not that I use it).
 
Seems to me that Den Kennie's review has to be taken with a grain of salt. Since his direct input was used by the Sony development team, he has a vested interest in the camera being (seen as) good- his reputation depends on it. I can't imagine Philip Bloom doing a review of his signature slider saying "well it has my name on it, but to be honest I wouldn't even weigh down papers with it".
 
Last edited:
jc01108 said:
Nigel,

Great review; learned a lot about the camera. It looks interesting. Without holding it and shooting with it, I really can't tell what I will think of it. The lack of ND filters is a strange one. One item you left out was whether the lens was truly a video lens or a still lens adapted for video use. One of the missing pieces for the AF100 is a run and gun type lens with a constant f stop and ability to zoom in, focus and then zoom out and have the lens stay in focus. Whether it auto focuses, I could care less, as I was brought up on HL-79s (remember those $35 cameras...had two of them and still have one that still works! Not that I use it).
Click to expand...

This is the same lens that came with my VG10. It was designed for the NEX digital still cameras. It is not a constant focus lens. You will need to refocus when you zoom.
 
_JD_ said:
Seems to me that Den Kennie's review has to be taken with a grain of salt. Since is direct input was used by the Sony development team, he has a vested interest in the camera being (seen as) good- his reputation depends on it. I can't imagine Philip Bloom doing a review of his signature slider saying "well it has my name on it, but to be honest I wouldn't even weigh down papers with it".
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but as stated in his blog, Den is aware of Nigel's review and disagrees with his conclusions. Believe which one you want, then try a camera out yourself.
And this camera is not called the Den Lennie -100 (DL-100?). It's a bit different when your name is actually on something, like Bloom's slider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top